Jump to content

Ha Ha Ha Drier is "outed"


bigguyinpasadena
This topic is 6628 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

When gays themselves treat gayness as a disgrace and a wrongdoing, how can we expect others to think it is not. When gays use it to intentionally hurt other gays, how can we expect others to respect us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>When gays themselves treat gayness as a disgrace and a

>wrongdoing, how can we expect others to think it is not. When

>gays use it to intentionally hurt other gays, how can we

>expect others to respect us.

 

You're not getting it. There's nothing wrong with being gay. Quite the contrary. But there IS something wrong with being a closeted gay in a position of power who uses his/her power and position to continue oppressing and persecuting out-of-the-closet gays. It's called hypocrisy (what would Jesus say about it?) and it can kill when exercised by closeted gays in politically powerful positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“You're not getting it. There's nothing wrong with being gay. Quite the contrary. But there IS something wrong with being a closeted gay in a position of power who uses his/her power and position to continue oppressing and persecuting out-of-the-closet gays. It's called hypocrisy (what would Jesus say about it?) and it can kill when exercised by closeted gays in politically powerful positions.”

 

What a huge pile of manure! When you’re in the closet, regardless of your position, regardless of the industry, regardless of your personal beliefs, you are going to do everything you can to maintain your “coat hanger” existence and quality of life.

 

It is also, inconceivable that being in such a position, that you have no right to a personal belief and, that failure to agree/cohere with every off the wall rainbow flag waving gay position, entitles others to out you, destroy your life, and celebrate your outing! After all, you are gay, closeted, and have NO right to disagree with any position that you don't personally support, just because some gays feel you have to agree/support everything, that every fringe gay group advocates!

 

IMO, those who publicly out others against their wishes, whether they are politicians, entertainers, athletes or any other other profession are SCUM!

 

Being gay is not illegal, however, being engaged in prostitution, whether a seller or buyer is definitely illegal, in most jurisdictions in the United States. Let’s find a way to publish in a public forum all the men who engage in prostitution activities. Easy to do, so "start sweating?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"VaHawk, perhaps I'm misreading your post. You're not making threats against people who frequent this site are you?"

 

Jesus F. Christ! I'm not privy to the ip addresses and associated personal information provided by the isp carrier associated with those addresses!, so HOW could I be making threats?

 

But that doesn't mean that the powers that be on this site, and anyone else who connects to this site, doesn't have that info and/or saviness. Do you really BELIEVE that providing your personal info to any site, including this one, means you are invisible and safe from anyone, in any regards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VaHawk, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we all are due some privacy regarding our personal lives. It is nobody's business to know who I am tickling the pee out of, for sure.

However, when one takes on the burden of public office, one's whole life is sure to become an object of scrutiny. Especially if one is espousing certain values, whilst living a life not in accordance with said beliefs.

Personally, I have no idea who this man in question is. OC might as well be another planet as far as I'm concerned. I do not know if he is married, with children, nor what his voting record is. But apparently he is a "conservative", meaning I guess, that when gay rights issues come to question, he probably votes against them.

In the meantime, he is having sex with men.

Certainly such a life is full of paradoxes... but we all have inconsistencies in our lives. However, not all of us have lives where our decisions affect the lives of so many others. This OC Rep. may feel that he himself is truly psychologically ill for wanting to sleep with men. In which case, he should simply say so, and seek treatment. There are still plenty of psychologists who'll try to turn a gay man straight, or at least make sure his libido is obliterated.

Or, he may feel that his sex life is nobody elses business. True, but he is part of a political group that wants to control and limit other people's sex lives. Which makes him at very best, a hypocrite, and a coward.

Or, he may be quite happy leading a dual life, screwing every faggot he can find, then going home to his submissive wife and obedient children, whilst doing whatever it takes to keep his political constituancy happy. This sort of power rush isn't at all uncommon... tyrants of all kinds have been doing it for eons. And it is a kind of politics that speaks for itself, and not one to which I personally can give any sort of respect.

In all the above cases there is a certain amount of denial going on, a kind of denial which is harmful, not only to the individual involved, but to the American public at large. It is only delaying the inevitable.

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Thanks for the verification. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that you're all threat and no action."

 

I did not make any threat whatsoever, and I believe I have NEVER made a threat of any kind against anyone on this site, or any other site!

 

Just wondering, if you can say the same thing? Hey hit the ALERT! button, as that seems to be your forte!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AlohaGuy

It is both shocking and disappointing when I see gays outing other gays to further their own personal agendas. "Agree with me about everything, do exactly what I want, think the way I tell you to think, or else I will do everything I can to destroy both your private and public life!!!" If that isn't fascism, then what the hell is?

 

The crux of gay rights and gay equality is that one's private life is just that: PRIVATE. What you do in your personal life and how you choose your particular pursuit of happiness, as long as you're not hurting anyone else, is your business and nobody else's. It seems that some believe that just by being a Republican, one is "hurting" gays. First of all, I'd like to know Dreier's voting record, exactly everything he did to hurt gays. Someone has yet to come up with a detailed account of his homophobic atrocities. Second, if you go with that argument (that anyone who associates with or supports anything that can be remotely perceived as anti-gay), then that means that I am entitled to out anyone who voted for Bill Clinton, who completely botched the gays in the military issue (thereby causing more violence on gays in the military and more gay dishonorable discharges than any other president in U.S. history) and championed the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

The out-ers want to have their cake and eat it too. Whenever "what's private should remain private" works to their advantage, they vehemently defend the principle. But as soon as they can damage someone's personal life (because of party affiliation or whatever other capricious motivation) to further their personal agenda, they leap on the opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ha Ha Ha Drier is "outed"

 

>It is both shocking and disappointing when I see gays outing

>other gays

 

(Before I post, let me say that I personally would never out anyone -- I never have and I never will. In this business, I know all too well that discretion is key and I respect other people's privacy. Having said that, I'll now put on my Devil's Advocate costume...)

 

Why is it so shocking and disappointing? What if some other private detail about Dreier's life had been revealed against his will, say for example (I'm making this up) the fact that his hair is dyed? What if someone posted on a website that David Dreier really has a full head of gray hair? Would you find that equally shocking? What if someone found out and revealed that he is 1/4 African-American? Would you find it as disappointing that someone did not respect his wish not to have his "blackness" exposed? Or would you think, "Hey, he's got nothing to be embarrassed about that; what's the big deal?" Why do we only care so deeply about someone's privacy being respected when they are in the closet, but not, say, when some paparazzi photographs Farrah Fawcett sneaking out of the hospital with bandages all over her face, fresh from cosmetic surgery? Why is there no outrage over that invasion of privacy? You're probably going to say that this is different, because someone's life will be "ruined," but don't you think that the sooner we all stop thinking of being gay as some horrible thing to be kept secret, the sooner outing will stop having the negative effect it now does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ha Ha Ha Drier is "outed"

 

It's a question of distinctions (or nuances), something people who can only think in black-or-white terms have difficulty understanding.

 

As a general rule, people's private lives SHOULD be as private as they want them to be. Of course, there are exceptions to this general rule. For example, society seems to be in consensus that one's private practice of pedophilia isn't something that should be protected, because it causes a larger harm.

 

Similarly, it's a fairly well-recognized exception in our society that people who choose to make themselves public figures waive at least some of their right to keep the details of their lives private. That certainly is true for political figures, who frequently set themselves up as moral examples and role models for the rest of society. In this regard, such a person's sexual orientation can be just as much a matter of public interest as other facets of their private lives, like the sources of their wealth.

 

In the case of "outing" a public official, there is a further distinction to be made between those (of whatever party) who don't wish to disclose their sexuality but also don't use their position to actively work to persecute other gay people, and those who actively do harm to other gays (sometimes as a means of maintaining their "cover"). Politicians like Barney Frank and Gerry Studds (before they were outed) come to mind as being in the first category. They may have been closeted gays, but they weren't using their positions to persecute other gays or deny us our rights (nor was their sexuality causing other general harm). That's not the case with some other politicians, though. In that case, their sexual orientation is fair game, because they are hypocrites and, in their hypocrisy, they are causing broad-scale harm to other people. Public figures who do that aren't deserving of protection.

 

As for hypocrisy, it seems to be an abundant natural resource. For example, I suspect that many of the people who so emphatically argue against "outing" anyone, regardless of the circumstances, applauded enthusiastically the "outing" of President Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. The affair was sleazy, but it was a private, consensual matter between two adults, and it wasn't causing harm to the general public (although it was potentially causing harm to Clinton's own family). This lapse in private morality was deemed worthy of generating a vast and expensive investigation, and an impeachment proceeding. Yet when someone "outs" a closeted politician who is actively harming other gays (some of whom, of course, are also his consituents) the same people would argue that he doesn't deserve exposure, no matter what. There's a certain lack of consistency in such thinking. Perhaps some reflection on this situational and selective lack of consistency might be a useful endeavor for those who engage in it.

 

BTW, my use of the Clinton/Lewinsky case as an example isn't meant to be a general defense of everything he did as President. Unquestionably, Clinton grossly botched allowing gays to serve in the military, and he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (in the latter case, I don't recall if it was on principle or because he concluded that there were enough votes in Congress to override a veto). Still, Clinton was the most gay-friendly President we've had yet, and although they are harmful, neither "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" nor DOMA are permanently etched in stone. On the other hand, a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages or any similar benefits like civil unions, which our current President actively supports, IS etched in stone for all practical purposes. I would argue that is a significantly greater evil than anything Clinton did or supported.

 

In an imperfect world, one has to weigh advantages against disadvantages, the practical against the impractical, perfection against imperfection, good against evil. It's the only way to determine a course of action, or whether, on balance, something or someone is going to be good for you (or a cause you believe in). On balance, I have to conclude that closeted public figures who use their positions to persecute and deny rights to other gay people are not good for us, and are not worthy of our support or protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>When gays themselves treat gayness as a disgrace and a

>wrongdoing, how can we expect others to think it is not. When

>gays use it to intentionally hurt other gays, how can we

>expect others to respect us.

 

What a bunch of horseshit. The extra-chromosome Right Wing is not going to respect gays no matter what we say or do. They demand that gays be denied the right to adopt children because they claim gays lead lives of sexual promiscuity, but when gays ask that society solemnize their monogamous unions, the Right Wing demand that this be denied to us as well. You, Merlin, really need to ask yourself why you spend so much time defending people who hate you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot, guys, for rejoicing in the possible destruction of the one conservative Republican congressman in Southern California who has publicly announced his opposition to the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Check this site:

 

http://boifromtroy.com/archives/001821.php

 

It makes you wonder just who is behind these outings. There could well be more than one set of people served by these acts, and you might not be happy to know that some of them could be using this process for anti-gay purposes.

 

I lived in OC for a long time and I can tell you that it is virtually impossible to have a political career beyond poll watcher there in either party if you are openly gay. The Democrats there are almost as conservative as the Republicans. (Check out the voting record of Rep. Loretta Sanchez, the one-time Republican when she was a candidate for Anaheim City Council. You'll find it skews right rather than left. She wants to be re-elected.) The other side of it is that there is still a sense of personal privacy there, which is why David Dreier, who is in fact a pretty gifted politician, has had some success.

 

Dreier's principled stand on this issue has been a huge help to gay people there, and opened a glimmer of light in the GOP, giving space to people who need it. If he goes down, it will not be helpful to any of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with Dreier's record. (He's not exactly one of the major luminaries in Congress.) However, if he's opposed things like the marriage amendment (and has actually voted against anti-gay proposals) then he hasn't been a hypocrite, he hasn't harmed other gay people and he doesn't deserve to be outed by other gays.

 

It's possible, of course, that conservatives (not necessarily gay) angry with Dreier for not supporting anti-gay proposals decided to out him in the hope of replacing him with a more reliably anti-gay candidate. O.C. politics are a true mudbath. Not that they aren't a contact sport just about everywhere else. x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Dreier's principled stand on this issue has been a huge help

>to gay people there, and opened a glimmer of light in the GOP,

>giving space to people who need it. If he goes down, it will

>not be helpful to any of us.

 

Just a moment, please. In what way does the opposition of one House member "help" gay people on this issue? Isn't it true that as a member of the House Republican caucus Dreier has voted to put people like Hastert and DeLay, who support the amendment, in powerful leadership positions? What "principles" does he have that allow him to oppose the amendment when it comes to his individual vote on the House floor but support Republican leaders who are pushing anti-gay legislation? Those must be some pretty fucking convoluted principles he has.

 

Isn't it true that Dreier is not some lowly back-bencher but Chairman of the House Rules Committee, one of the most powerful committees in the House in that it controls the scheduling of legislation and the conditions under which bills can be debated and amended? It is through that committee that the Speaker exercises much of his power to control when and how legislation gets voted on, isn't that so? And for this reason the Speaker always makes certain to have a chairman who can be counted on to do his bidding, right? I think you are trying to create a false impression of who Dreier is and what he does in the House. He is a key player in advancing the Republican agenda in the House and as such his fingerprints are on every major bill that comes up for a vote, including the anti-marriage amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ha Ha Ha Drier is "outed"

 

Dreier is, as I said, a conservative Republican. I did not say or imply that he was a back bencher. Someone else may have. He is part of the Republican leadership of the HR and he has of course pursued the political course you describe. He is also on record as being against the marriage amendment, at some, perhaps great, cost to himself, certainly in his own district and with his own party. I am happy that there are Republicans who oppose this measure, not least because at the moment they are in power, and seem likely to remain so. I think gay people should welcome and applaud people like Dreier who go out on a limb like this and encourage more to do so.

 

The marriage amendment has exposed a serious fault line in the Republican party, which was not originally conservative, but began its life as a strong central government party willing to use national resources in a big way to promote national issues. There is a perfectly respectable conservative position against this amendment: keep the power of the government out of people's lives, and if it must be exercised, at the lowest possible level of government. It is one of the reasons that many conservative-minded people do not think that George W is really a conservative, nor are the Christian right, since they are willing to start at the top with government intervention in personal matters. Whether W wins or loses in November, there is tension between the Bush-type nationalizers (which at the moment include the anti-gay types) and the small government conservatives. I think there is a big fight coming after the election over this for the GOP's future, which will include a fight over balanced budgets and small government, both of which W seems to have abandoned.

 

I had thought that perhaps this outing, if it is effective, might have been a serious attempt to get Dreier to lose the election, so I checked the internet on that race. He won in 2002 by 62.8%, and his Democratic opponent this year is Cynthia Matthews, a Christian peace and justice environmental advocate who has never held office. She is probably being supported to gain name recognition and a circle of supporters to run for the state legislature or another office at a later date. It seems unlikely that Dreier would lose, unless this becomes a huge issue and he somehow "lost it", which seems unlikely, but you never know.

 

A helpful site for California politics, by the way, is

http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CA.htm

 

which I believe has simliarly useful information on all the states and a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>I'm not familiar with Dreier's record.

 

Jimmy Buffet would be so proud! There is definitely no lack of parrot heads in the gay community, trained to squawk the spoon fed pablum their party tells them to spout. Damn the facts! Damn I love the thrill of obeying a master telling me to jump on the bandwagon and I certainly don't need to know any of the facts. I just jump because they tell me to jump.

>

>I am. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act AND the

>recent, reprehensible Marriage Protection Act!

 

Aren't Representatives and/or Senators supposed to support the opinions/concerns of the citizens that make up their area of representation? Should they vote to support an issue that 90% of the citizens that they represent have expressed opposition towards? Isn't that the whole point of Congress as designed in the checks and balances system installed by the founding fathers?

 

Any congressman who fails to heed the voice of his constituents runs a serious risk of being voted out of office. Is it wrong to be gay, and listen to the voice of the citizens you represent, even though such a stance is anathema to your personal beliefs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Aren't Representatives and/or Senators supposed to support

>the opinions/concerns of the citizens that make up their area of

>representation? Should they vote to support an issue that 90%

>of the citizens that they represent have expressed opposition

>towards?

 

The short answer is that they generally do, but not always. That's why the United States is a republic (a representative democracy) and not a direct democracy like ancient Athens (where all citizens voted on everything at huge town-hall like meetings). Representative and Senators are expected to lead, not just follow, and are expected to use their consciences and not just blindly follow the popular will of the moment. It takes courage to defy your consituents, of course, but it's not such an uncommon commodity, although notably lacking in the present Congress.

 

> Is it wrong to be gay, and listen to the voice of the

>citizens you represent, even though such a stance is anathema

>to your personal beliefs?

 

Yes. It means you've sold out the core of your being, for what? A chance at power? For what purpose? Trying to convince people you're a macho man because you persecute faggots? What could ever be worth this degree of denial and self-denigration? And in the end, it's often catastrophic. These closeted creeps run very strong risks of being exposed, either by being "outed" by others, or by their own indiscretions. When it happens they face the ruin of the lives and political careers. From a psychological standpoint, it's too sick for words, and who needs a sick-o representing them in Washington, or anywhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yes. It means you've sold out the core of your being, for what? A chance at power? For what purpose? Trying to convince people you're a macho man because you persecute faggots? What could ever be worth this degree of denial and self-denigration? And in the end, it's often catastrophic. These closeted creeps run very strong risks of being exposed, either by being "outed" by others, or by their own indiscretions. When it happens they face the ruin of the lives and political careers. From a psychological standpoint, it's too sick for words, and who needs a sick-o representing them in Washington, or anywhere else?"

 

Isn't this at least a tad melodramatic?

 

Many people, while not advocating outlawing gay marriage via the Constitution, also do not support the idea of gay marriage.

 

I personally feel that the insistence of recognizing gay marriage is stupid in the very fact that it generates animosity towards gays as a whole, and is just one of many smoke screens that the current administration loves to deploy to deflect attention from the real issues, that should be under discussion (and I'm not referring to smoke screen #2 about Vietnam/National Guard service and all the bs about IBM selectric fonts).

 

I also don't feel that gay people who are in Congress, and don't blatantly come out and support every gay issue, are being macho poseurs or are guilty of "persecuting faggots". IMO, people who accuse them of such, are those who base their sole existence and self-worth on the issue of being "gay" itself, and are much more guilty of "intolerance" than those they are criticizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ha Ha Ha Drier is "outed"

 

The funny aspect about living in OC, for the most part OC has a reputation of being the most conservative are in the country. Some how Rep Drier has been able to build his credentials around a conservative criteria, the people of his district for the most part approve of his voting record. The group that will have the hardest time accepting who he is are Christians.

 

Now, Orange County have had some controversial politicians in past times. Rep Loretta Sanchez was mentioned before. In 1996, she was barely elected to the House of Representatives as a democrat, a very controversial election as the post election centered around accussations of fraud. Her opponent happened to be Rep Robert Dornan ( B1 Bomber ). That man was and continues to be bombastic. He was a huge critic of Bill Clinton throughout the 1990's. Earlier this year, he tried to run again this year against a congressman who resides in Huntington Beach and failed miserably. A person like Bob Dornan will not go away. If Rep Drier survives gets re-elected this year. It maybe a long shot, some people in the Dornan circles are already urging him to consider running against Drier in 2006. If Mr Dornan were to challenge Mr Drier, I wouldn't be suprised to see a lot of media coverage. Who knows, anything can happen within the next two years.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Ha Ha Ha Drier is "outed"

 

>Dreier is, as I said, a conservative Republican. I did not

>say or imply that he was a back bencher. Someone else may

>have. He is part of the Republican leadership of the HR and

>he has of course pursued the political course you describe.

>He is also on record as being against the marriage amendment,

>at some, perhaps great, cost to himself, certainly in his own

>district and with his own party.

 

"At great cost"? What cost? If he has no prospect of losing his seat and if he is allowed to retain the chairmanship of one of the most powerful committees in the House, a position that necessarily means he has the Speaker's trust and confidence, then what "cost" are you talking about? What is it he has sacrificed, exactly?

 

 

>I am happy that there are

>Republicans who oppose this measure, not least because at the

>moment they are in power, and seem likely to remain so. I

>think gay people should welcome and applaud people like Dreier

>who go out on a limb like this and encourage more to do so.

 

So far as I can tell Dreier has risked nothing and lost nothing in order to take this position. The House Republican leadership has a history of tolerating gay members like Foley and Kolbe as long as they don't make a big, public fuss about gay issues and as long as they toe the party line on other issues. If Dreier is indeed gay, he certainly fits that model. I don't think his actions are anything to be proud of or any reason for gay men to congratulate him. He has cooperated with the House leadership on many measures that have hurt this country. The sooner he, like the rest of them, is gone forever, the better off this nation will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...