Gay Republicans: When Is Outing Okay?

January 7, 2014
Gay Republicans: When Is Outing Okay?

It's been a high profile week in outing. From Super Bowl Champ Aaron Rodgers to two (or more) alleged Hobbit stars, people seem to be breaking down closet doors that are not their own. And while it would be nice to add NFL players and a few more actors to the team roster, there's one outing in question that our community could do with out: the gay republican hypocrite. In this particular case, it's Republican Congressman Aaron Shock, who's been outed this week by noted CBS journalist Itay Hod. In a not-so-blind item on his Facebook page, he poses the question of when it's right to out someone. Citing Shock's disgraceful anti-gay voting history, he sees fit to call this gay man out for all the world to see. And I agree with Hod - if you discreetly come to our community looking for "our services" and then turn around and openly plot against us, you need to be brought down. That kind of hypocrisy should be out in the open.

There's a lot at stake when you're a public figure. In many cases, your livelihood depends on little more than your image and how the public perceives you. I would love for every closeted man to come out (public or otherwise) but understand that it's a personal decision that not to be taken lightly. And even though greater visibility can only make our community stronger and those struggling to accept themselves easier, I still respect a person's decision not to come out. But when you're doing harm to our lives and the rights of a minority (a minority that, secretly or not, you seek acceptance from), I take no issue with someone taking you down and exposing your lies. There are all kinds of tricks the mind can play - ambition and a spotlight on you can make life seem askew - but it still baffles my mind that a conscience would allow someone to vote as Congressman Shock does and then troll our streets looking for sex/love from us.

What's your take on the case of Aaron Shock (and other gay hypocrites)? Should he be outed by anyone other than himself? What about the others outed this week?

By the way, we were on to Shock back in 2011 when we put him at #8 on our list of RILFs (Republicans I'd Like to F*ck), but with all they do we really want to f*ck any of them? presents…The Top 10 2011 RILFs from DaddyhuntNYC on Vimeo.

Tags: Aaron Shock, Outing, Aaron Rodgers
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this
Post written by RobHeartsDH (View Author Profile)
About this author: Rob lives in Manhattan with his black pug Riley. When he’s not thinking about daddies, he enjoys writing, eating burritos, watching copious amounts of television, and thinking about his next meal.
View all posts by RobHeartsDH


"OUR" lives? Who constitutes "us?"

Come on, admit it. Define it as you see it. Who is the "us" with "OUR" lives?

Either stop telling the Great Lie and COME OUT from behind the veil and reveal your real National-Socialist-like, Fascistisc, Progressivist agenda -- with all it's Socialism, Nihilism, Eugenics, Racism and so many other destructive ideals -- or admit that you have no clue what any of that means and that you're just an uninformed KoolAid drinker who's been made into a useful idiot for the financial and political gain of people who actually don't give a crap about you?

Just be honest. COME OUT!

Thanks. Some of the most intolerant guys I've met are gay activists who claim to be the "gay community" and speak for all of us.

It's an open and shut case: our lives and limited rights are too precious and too vulnerable to be at the mercy of people who would insist that closetry is a desirable option. Especially if that's a dishonest and fearful choice they themselves have made in the name of power and greed.

Condemning outing is a sad by-product of self-loathing: you wouldn't do it unless you were convinced at a very deep level that being gay was inherently wrong. Clear-thinking non-gays don't support hypocrisy in politics or real-life - why should gays perpetuate and excuse it?

Schock deserves to be cut down, and he's one of the poorest examples I've ever come across of anybody who has any rights to anything an unemployable gay doesn't. He's the reflection of all the murders and suicides and broken lives that have gone before. Gay or not, he's a reflection of gay self-loathing. By extension, when we stop loathing ourselves the Aaaron Schocks of the world will become invisible and powerless.

On behalf of Gay Inc, I'd urge all gays to man up and abandon their distaste for "the gay agenda" because the rights you currently enjoy didn't happen by the grace of god, or your "good behavior". As a queer activist, I've risked my own safety and well-being so that others don't suffer. I don't appreciate gay cowardice at any level, and as you condemn outing I condemn the "enemy within": you're no help whatsoever but you are a significant hindrance.

B S daddyhunt has become a political hack.

spreading rumors is never a good thing

Has it?

Try to remember that it's political hackery getting in the way of your fundamental human rights and equality, and it's best represented by the likes of Aaaron Schock.

The fact that he's a hateful creep who would impact negatively on the lives of millions if given half a chance should be sounding more alarm bells than the pros and cons of rumor-spreading about his sexuality.

Fundamental human rights and equality? There is not one single fundamental human right that a gay person is denied in this country. Bearing arms? Freedom of speech? Freedom of Religion, assembly, the press, etc etc? Not a one. The problem is an insane "redefinition" of what fundamental human rights and equality are. "Equality" is being used in place of egalitarianism, which position states that one must be the same for one to be equal. Bull. And "Fundamental Human Rights" is being used in place of "whatever and however *I* (subjectively) decide the world should be." Or whatever the Gayist Nazis decide it should be. It's narcissism. It's foolishness. The hypocrisy lies with the "Gay Community" who shoves those who dare think otherwise into the closet. It's thought policing, it's dangerous and it's destructive. And it's HUGE HUGE money, HUGE profit for those who engage in it.

Worst of all, not one single bit of this has anything to do with one dude having sex with another dude. I can plow a dude's ass and believe that same-sex "marriage" is ludicrous and not a good thing for society. In fact, I do plow asses of dudes and I do believe that same-sex "marriage" is ludicrous and not a good thing for society. I do it all the time! But I can't say it within the "Gay Community." I have already paid for that financially. Over 6k (a felony) of damage was perpetrated on my vehicle because I dared to sign a petition in MA that simply requested that same-sex marriage be put to a vote. It wasn't a for or against, it was strictly a petition to put it to the vote. That list, which is public information and contains name and address, was made available on the web. My car was beaten with a crowbar or similar object and then -- get this -- in shaving cream, the word "BREADER" was spelled on the hood. Breader. I guess that's the kid in the back of the KFC dunking raw chicken into flour before frying it. The psychotic KoolAid drinkers didn't even know how to spell their own insult of BREEDER (and how do they think they came into existence??) and clearly could not conceive of that someone who is not a BREADER could have signed that neutral petition. That happened after signing a petition. Signing that petition is a fundamental human right in a representative republic and the "Gay Community" punished me -- and hundreds of other -- from exercising it. Don't preach about being denied fundamental human rights when the "Gay Community" is all for denying others their fundamental human rights, if they happen to disagree.

From that incident, I know that if I spoke my position calmly and intelligently at some sort of "Gay Community" gathering, I could certainly expect more damage to property and risk of my physical person.

They keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Someday, there will be a backlash. The "Gay Community," masters at destroying the lives and careers of others, will bring about their own demise since, a long time ago, they became exactly what they hate. And they are filled with hate.

I could not have said it better Jayrod69 !!!!!
Thanks for taking the time to show some "reality" on the subject.

Yes, that's right: fundamental human rights and equality. It's a fundamental human right to not be exterminated because you are hated for your sexuality and political legalism excuses murderers. Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it's a critical step towards equality.

Too bad your car got trashed, but you deserve it. Why should the rights of some be subjected to a vote which may very well legally enshrine denial of rights to many? Be honest with yourself: it's something you don't want, and you'd be more than happy to see it denied to others. One man's democracy is another man's mob rule, and anyhow I doubt you'd accept any vote that didn't suit your agenda.

The anti-gay backlash you're trying to spook people with has been well under way for a very long time. It's a voice from the closet that deserves to be ridiculed because it's all about perpetuating self-hatred and fear. So don't accuse activist gays of being hateful if all that stands between you and a long prison sentence for "plowing a dude's ass" is a signature on a piece of legislation.

I deserved it? Isn't that a so-called "hate crime?" Nice to know that you endorse crime as an action against someone simply asking to practice his civil rights.

So it ends up that I am in danger of having my civil rights infringed-upon or even denied by ... the "Community" that claims that its civil rights are being infringed-upon or even denied.

Certain elements have forced or at least convinced courts in certain areas to bypass the Separation of Powers and require legislation to be passed. If that can be done in a way that is favorable to you, it can be done in future by different persons in the same position in a way that is unfavorable to you. That's the place where it stands to reason a backlash can and will occur.

So this is what we have as a result of dropping Civics and Logic from school curriculum and replacing it with sensitivity training?

"Too bad your car got trashed, but you deserve it."

How quickly the "victims" become the victimizers. Using imaginary threats of "extermination" and state intrusion into the bedroom, the gay Left justifies real crimes. The gay Left becomes the problem they claimed to oppose.

For the Left, the only "morality" is that the ends justify the means. That mindset has no qualms about doing whatever is necessary to silence or eliminate opponents. It's similar to the Soviet mindset which has inflicted mass murder and misery on hundreds of millions of people.

In the pursuit of their phony utopia, the Left destroys a civil society. Speaking from an American perspective, that sums up the record of Obama and his accomplices. The Obama/Democrat regime uses special interest groups to consolidate power and destroy freedom and prosperity. The gay Left is apparently happy to be so used, and is happy to see harm inflicted on its gay opponents.

I agree with Jayrod. Far left gays are one of the reasons most people feel the way they do about gays. They are always saying what someone does in their bedroom is nobody's business, so, practice what you preach. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not give anyone the right to meddle in someone's bedroom.
As far as Schrock. I have no idea. If he is it will soon come out when the time comes. Certainly not anyones business, right?

Perfectly stated... The gay left is self destructive and trying to take the whole country along with them. And they are as or more hateful than those they accuse.

I myself have been outed and anyone who's been through it knows it's one of the worst, most vulnerable times in your life which you now no longer have any control over. Coming out should be a decision someone makes for him or her SELF. It is not a decision to be made by another person, no matter what the circumstances.

Have you? Well spare a thought for the Persons of Color who never had the luxury of hiding behind a mask of deceit about what they are.

Tell me about their rights to make a decision about whether or not they will be perceived to be second-class citizens and worthy of lynching.

At the end of the day you only get to tell lies about yourself when you're born into privilege, and want to keep it that way. Shame and greed are what usually keeps someone in the closet, so it's no great loss if they're outed before they're "ready".

so i guess the days of an accepting gay community are long since gone. that's a shame. It's a real shame.

Gay men have a long history of non-acceptance: think rules like "no fats, fems or freaks" along with the newer varieties around race and income and the rest of the nauseating middle-class wishlist.

Thank queer activists for a brave attempt at inclusiveness: that's what "LGBTI Community" is all about. It's quite a stretch to expect to be accepted as a closet queen, when the closet serves to destroy GLBTI goals by virtue of the actions and inactions of closeted people...people who may claim to be benign but usually aren't.

Look at some of the vitriolic hostility here from gay men who undoubtedly are all benefiting from the courage and determination of the LGBTI movement of the last 20 years.

Courage? Determination, yes, but courage? So when a pro athlete comes out, -- and is lauded by the "community," gets all kinds of accolades and interviews and his name becomes a household word -- that's courage? Nah. Courage requires a risk of some kind of personal loss/damage/cost. Instead, that's just opportunism and the "community" doesn't even realize it's being used as a corporate useful idiot in the process.

Courage is when a gay individual speaks out against the self-destructiveness and hypocrisy of the "community." He is then ostracized, vandalized and threatened. That takes courage.

Nah, man. It's people like you who push others into the closet and bolt the door hoping we'll keep our mouths shut and no one outside "the community" will notice that there is a plurality of opinions.

You're prejudices and bigotry are clear which says a lot more about you. And your inability to be at minimum empathetic towards the poor kid shows the kind of hate towards others that is festering in you.

from where do you obtain the authority to speak for another? This implies that you know (or rather, *think* you know) what is best for someone else - I'm sorry, but you do not. Respect decisions others make in their own lives, mind your own damn business and don't be a busy body.

**Edit**: "Bigoted"... I do not think that word means what you think it means. You claim i am being bigoted by letting others live their lives how they see fit. I fail to see how a statement that amounts to "mind your own business" and "I can't say what is best for others" is in any way shape or form a bigoted message. I suspect the bigots are the ones who claim they know more than others, and are more than willing to hate others. so sick of the hate perpetuated by the gays. I don't subscribe to this "they hate us so we'll hate them back! Harder!" mentality.

No no no, bro. That was responding to rickinoz's very disrespectful response to you. I was not responding to you but rather defending you. ;-)

Sorry ....wrong . As stated if you are paid by the people and sent to Washington to rep them then all bets are off... No way you can play gay on the side while voting against gay interests or womens rights and a number of other issues .You want to be a politico? leave your hypocrisy and the door .

I agree completely that the vocal/political/religious hypocrite should be outed. I have no sympathy for the Shocks of our society. Aaron Rodgers should not be because, apparently, he isn't gay. He said so emphatically but without putting a negative slant on it. He denied it plausibly and without denigrating gays.

The poster mentioned that Shock had an Anti-Gay voting history but didn't mention what he voted "anti-gay" on. That to me, is ambiguous. Without being specific on what topics he voted "anti-gay" on, I'm suspicious that he simply voted in a way that you or that reported didn't like.

What were the bills he voted "disgracefully anti-gay" on? Does the poster (or anyone) know?

Besides, isn't a "representative" congressman supposed to vote not along his personal views but along his constituents' views???

HRC has a breakdown on every legislator's voting record as it relates to gay rights. Here's Shock's:

Click "Learn more" to see more details about how they were rated.

Wow! Interesting reading. I appreciate the different points of view but could do without the vitriol. Some of the points raised leave me pondering, for instance....

"I like to plow a guy's ass but don't think gay marriage is good for society." I'm left pondering how those guys feel about the court rulings that struck down sodomy laws (as well as the earlier ones about oral sex. Yes, oral sex used to be outlawed) so that they can plow ass in the privacy of their own home without fear of going to jail for their favored sexual practice? It was the case of two gay men that went to court that resulted in overturning anti-sodomy laws. Yeah, I know, straight people practice sodomy too but it was gay men who took on the system and won. But that only brings us back to the original statement that you can like plowing ass but not think gay marraige is good for society. I guess wanting to be able to plow or be plowed within the confines of a legally recognized relationship is just asking too much. I guess we got the sex who needs the marraige?

I also have to ponder the statement that "Shock should vote in a way that represents the constituency that elected him." Let's go back to 2013 and see if we can learn anything: after the kindergarten shooting in Conn. a majority of Americans across all party lines supported more stringent background checks for people wanting to buy a gun. Yet, our elected representatives ignored the majority opinion and did not support the measure put before them . Apparently they thought they knew better than their constituents (or it could it be they were taking the side of the gun lobby which pours millions and millions of dollars into political campaigns annually. Who knows?). Obviously, ignoring your constituents is not an uncommon practice among politicians. On the other hand there are those who point out that you may not agree with every aspect of a political party or candidate but you vote for the person/party that most closely reflects your overall values. If that is also true, then wouldn't Shock's constituents understand if he voted in favor of pro-gay legislation (you know, little things like legislation that would protect people at work so they couldn't be fired for being gay)? Of course, IF Shock is gay, didn't he get elected under false pretenses? If you lie to get elected can you ever be trusted?

Finally, the question I've been pondering for at least 30 years is when as a country are we going to learn our lessons (a nod to those who point out that you need to learn from history) about equality? African-Americans, Mexican Americans, women, the disabled, and others have all had to stand up and fight for the same basic rights that white men (like me) in this country have always had. Now there is a fight to ensure that gay men and women receive fair and equal treatment under the laws of our country and regardless of political affiliation that seems like something to be supported.

"If you lie to get elected can you ever be trusted?"

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

"Now there is a fight to ensure that gay men and women receive fair and equal treatment under the laws of our country and regardless of political affiliation that seems like something to be supported."

Don't know where you live, but I always get fair and equal treatment under the laws of our country. What's more, I don't demand special treatment.

I have not personally needed special treatment under the law either even though the law confers some special protection to me because I am over age 50. I've never been discriminated against, and frankly, for whatever reason, I've often been offered preferential treatment in many settings. Unfortunately, that isn't true for everyone.

Despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution envisions a country where everyone is treated equally -- and as a country we constantly strive to reach achieve that vision -- there are still issues to be addressed. Jim Crow laws didn't treat people of color as if they were equal and it took a civil rights movement and legislation to change those laws and help ensure that people of color were treated equally. That was 50 years ago (1964). ONLY 50 years ago. In the 70's and 80's women had to go to court because they were being paid less to do the same work as men, that is, if they could get the jobs. In the 90's women sought legal protection from unwanted sexual advances at work. Also in the 90's legislation was needed to ensure that people with disabilities had equal access to employment, buildings and programs. Technically, all those groups we're equal under the Constitution but not all employers and businesses treated them equally. Now, to ensure that other gays and lesbians (since you and I don't need protection) are treated equally wherever they may reside, work, recreate, or seek services, we need to demand some legal protection so they cannot be [legally] discriminated against. Just because you and I have never experienced discrimination doesn't mean that I am blind to those who are discriminated against.

Respect all your points (esp. the "reflecting overall values"). If Shock was voting as constituents wished, then isn't outing him unfair to his privacy unfair? He was doing his job. I think we need to consider each of these arguments but consider them only within the context of his job. Thx for your response!!

"It's a fundamental human right to not be exterminated because you are hated for your sexuality and political legalism excuses murderers."

Unless, of course, you live in a muslim country. Then Gay Inc. isn't interested.

"He's the reflection of all the murders and suicides and broken lives that have gone before."

I wonder how many commit suicide because they don't want to be confused with the angry, bitter queens like Rick? I've known many guys who considered it, when they were coming out, because they didn't want to be associated with the hate queens or the stereotypes that passe as representatives on TV and alleged "pride" parades.

Your post is a fine example of how destructive and deceitful internalized homophobia really is.

It's the by-now predictable response from the closet which underscores why gay men keep shooting themselves in the feet when it comes to advancing our movement: spewed loathing and ugly personal attacks about how visible activism is counter-productive. An unreasonable and unprovable position to be sure, and always fueled by the "I'm not one of THOSE queens" mindset. If you want to discuss gay stereotypes I'd suggest you take a good long hard look at that one.

It's unacceptably deceitful to attach that agenda to gay suicide in an attempt to justify it. Can you give us some empirical facts and figures (and solid psychology) to support your position? Or are you just perpetuating an internalized homophobia which always projects shame and loathing outwards at men who are comfortable enough with their own sexuality to wear it publicly and with pride?

Homophobia. LOL Another weasel word. "Homo," Greek for "same" and "phobos," Greek for "fear." Or take "homo" from Latin which is the generic for "mankind." So "homophobia" means either "fear of the same" or "fear of mankind." Utterly ridiculous; the fruit of hysteria and deception. It's just a way to divide people by labeling them to shut them out and shut them up.

"Internalized homophobia." lol Listen to yourself. The other great one, not mentioned above, is "self-loathing." lol

Good Lord, these people are utterly bankrupt intellectually. Basic vocabulary, civics, history, logic ... nonexistent. But dammitall, they know who they hate! They don't know why and can't explain why they hate or even define what they hate, but they sure can hate anyway! Wow! Takes a big, courageous, educated man to do that, doesn't it? I doff my hat, throw my principles aside and bow to the Greatness!

Stop defining yourself by your sexual proclivities. You're a lot more than that. You're a person, a human being, an American. In fact, you're far far better and offer far far more than simply being a pawn of an agenda that doesn't actually care one bit about you as a person.

You're swinging wide and not making much sense at all. A lot of personalized and general insults and mocking (with no substance whatsoever) contributes nothing to an open debate. Do you have any on-topic points you're trying to make? Since you've already checked out my profile, it should be clear to you (and anybody with a grade-school education) that I'm not defined by sexual proclivities (lol) nor am I a pawn in any agenda. Nice try though.

Check on the modern English usage of "homophobia" and you'll find it's actually not defined by it's Greek and Latin components at all. Wikipedia has a good entry on "self-hatred" - you might also check that out while you're at it.

Yes, I was entirely wrong ... on the part about you being an American. At least according to your profile's listed location. Your many strongly opinionated statements are interesting since the article is based on references to American legislators.

You are truly a pawn in the "agenda." It's unfortunate that you're unaware of that. Have you ever considered who may have been victimized by that agenda and your material cooperation thereof/therein?

I understood it exactly, because I make it a point to understand context and perspective.

You obviously consider that it's perfectly acceptable to fully define yourself by the sex you like. That's it. Nothing more. It's who you are.

There are those, however, who view that particular preference to be just one more attribute of a fuller, richer person, with plenty of interests, talents, and skills beyond the way we wiggle our hineys and weenies during sex.

It is your philosophy that makes being "gay" and "in the community" every bit as imprisoning as the former closet. Spare me from the likes of you at dinner parties.

There is no such thing as privacy in 2014. I'm sure this gay Republican knows this; the very concept of a "closet" is dated in this era of surveillance, marketing analysis, and perpetual tweets, comments, and posts. Is there any doubt that someone tracks everything from what our political views to how many hours a month we view porn sites? His constituents may overlook that he's gay as long as he represents their interests, but it is naive to think that everyone's going to play nice with him if he wants to have his cake and eat us too. The era of gay men considering "anger" a dirty word is over; we've had decades of being polite;welcome to the age of the impolite and pissed off gay man. Right or wrong, the only renegades and 'little monsters' out there are not only in Lady Gaga's camp. There is a growing legion that is tired of being civil, well-mannered, and patient with the impossibly thick skulls of people who would rather we not exist. No, I don't believe in "outing", (for I was "outed" myself at 19 when someone in my family invaded my privacy by opening a love letter sent to me by my first boyfriend during summer break from college), but this man chose to be a political animal, not a charwoman; he chose that spotlight in the public arena. When all is said and done, we all have to sleep with our own conscience at night. He can sleep with all the gay men he wants to, but to some of there's nothing worse than a man who doesn't know what side of the bed he wants to sleep on.

....says someone named "BJHeaven."

I prefer his sensibilities to yours, frankly. And I need to opt out of your use of the term "we." I don't want you or those who think like you to speak for me. You are not my "us." My friends, family, co-workers, and others I choose are.

... ain't no love...
... in this age...
... in this day...

... disagreements...
... are enemies...
... cultures...
... are wars...

... and the vultures...
... are whores...
... or the whores...
... are vultures...
... or vulture culture whores...
... alas...
... i digress...

... ain't no love...
... in this age...
... this day...
... to where i should be...
... proud...
... to be gay...
... if i ever knew...
... what that was...
... anyway...

... there is no...
... all of us...
... just some of us...
... some of them...
... a lot of a few...
... of those...
... and god surely knows...

... ain't no love...
... in this age...
... this damned day...
... so much as i could...
... pray...
... would guide us all...
... in wisdom...


There is. Perhaps not within this extended and often ugly conversation. But there is.

Nice to see the healthy debate. This is a topic that really came to a head during the early years of the Aids Epidemic, when political heavy handed self righteous bigots decided that those kinds of people could die, should be rounded up and put in concentration camps. That no way was any federal or state government moneys going to be spent on medicine, research, prevention. It was huge debate if the closet cases should be outed with in Act UP! At the time I felt, along with many others that outing anybody was wrong let alone some of the closeted hypocrites that were in charge of federal health policy. In hindsight, I was wrong. We should have outed every single one of the bastards. If it saved just one of our lost brothers or sisters to out every single closeted hypocrite. I find the state of so called straight men who are pledging their undying love and fidelity when they wed their wives, and playing on the down low a hang over of taking the easy way out. Its easy to live in the closet, paint the picket fence, its destructive to those who you create a life with, and sooner or later the dubious behavior catches up with oneself. Guess who pays, not the closeted, its his wife, its his kids, all the people who he has been lying to, because it was easier to live in the closet. He or she couldn't handle the social stigma, but mocks those who stand up to be counted. Oh poor thing , that he has wants and needs and can't find that in his chosen partner. The truth is the truth, get over the fact that you can't have your cake and eat it too, with out paying for it down the line. Its the flamboyant, the drags, male and female, those that couldn't pass that have blazed the trail to our sexual liberty. Straight acting closet cases are lame. Masculine men rock, the swish etc. rock, and know how to paint a much better picket fence.

Yes rivermoose it's high time we stopped turning a blind eye to our closeted brothers, and started holding them accountable for their destructive mindset and their unforgivable politics. (You don't have to be an American to get it worked out that many gays would rather see themselves as "political animals" who only view gay rights in terms of their wingnut conservative politics. That in itself is a disconnect from reality when you think about it.)

You'll notice nobody's addressed OP Rob's question about whether or not they're even worthy of our love or our sex. Of course they want inclusion on their own terms, but rightfully need to be treated as untrustworthy pariahs. Who wants a man they can't trust?

The beauty of this thread of course is that it's clearly articulated how toxic the gay enemy within really is. It's fantastic that we have outing! The issue gives us a much clearer picture of who's holding us back and how they're doing it, as well as the degree of irrationality in their rabid condemnation of their own kind. Let them bray about rights they don't have, threaten impending retaliations and relentlessly scream about how any ethically-based progress towards true equality is a Commie plot...which they denounce as "hatred". What a joke - who needs 'em?

" If it saved just one of our lost brothers or sisters to out every single closeted hypocrite."

Perish the thought of shutting down the bath houses or doing what was necessary to protect yourselves and others, though. There still was and is a HELL of a lot of gay selfishness that stood in the way of saving your "brothers or sisters". Lots of whining, pissing and moaning without very much introspection at all. Nope. It was all about demanding more money from the glorious state and (as now) demanding everybody love you while you piss on their shoe. Now barebacking is popular and the selfish crowd is silent once again.

Amen, brother. It's always good to have adults in the room when the kids are ranting.

And besides, isn't all this crap about Schock being gay based on fan-fiction anyways?

Oh and please forgive me if I don't tremble in fear of your imaginary concentration camps while you actively support those who rabidly defend the extermination of people, including gays.

Sieg heil, baby.

And your Rant sounds like something out of the ever so clever Fox News Think Tank, you were not there young man. You were in grade school at best. Go back, do some research on what the fear mongers and gay haters were saying and trying to do. Kids with Aids were not allowed to go to school because of the fearful ignorant. And yes there was a lot of talk of rounding up those suspected of, and hence people still are afraid to be tested for HIV. The President of the United States would not even say the word Aids for almost four years after the disease was identified and confirmed as an epidemic by world health experts. I in no way am defending the extermination of anyone, what I am saying is that there is no place for closeted self hating ass holes to rule political policy over my out lifestyle and civil rights. I have been out and proud since 1971, took the beatings in school, the discrimination on a daily basis, and see it still being used by those who are lazy thinkers and hate mongers. If every closeted LGBT person came out tomorrow, I think the whole point of this civil rights issue would be mute with in a couple of years. I am an openly gay athlete, coach, teacher, and have tried to serve society as an example of what a decent gay man can grow up to be, open and honest. The only extermination I condone is that of the closets that are being used for dubious behavior with in society as a whole. Stop pointing, stand up and be counted.

Your past is not everyone's past, and you become the despot if you insist that all must live in a certain way because you lived in a certain way. What an obnoxious and warped way of thinking.

Being "gay" or even homosexual isn't provable because men who have sex with men can have a heterosexual identity and even actually believe that they are actually heterosexual
so you leave yourself open to being sued if you make a declaration about someone's gayness or sexuality.

I don't see a problem with stating that a certain person has been holding hands with or kissing a member of the same gender - if you have the photographs - but then again, these days they can claim that the photos have been modified.

As for the whole "people have a right to privacy" crap:
Anyone who wants to keep secret that they like strawberry flavoured ice cream and don't like peanut butter flavoured ice cream needs to chill out if I tell someone that I saw them enjoying some strawberry flavoured ice cream.
Like, what's the big deal?
Why the secrecy?
If you're making a big deal of keeping something irrelevant a secret, you're making a big deal out of it and drawing attention to it.

To me the definition of a "gay man" is a man who loves other men emotionally, sexually and spiritually. To attempt to hurt another gay man, for any reason, is the true hipocrisy.

I define a gay man as a man loves other men emotionally, sexually and spiritually. For a gay man to deliberately attempt to harm another man, for any reason, is the true hipocrisy.

A gay man is a man who has an emotional, sexual and spiritual connection to other men. The deliberate attempt to cause pain to another man is the true hypocrisy.