As you know, we usually don’t cover political stories unless they intersect some way with celebrities or pop culture. I think this story does, and many celebrity blogs seem to agree. Rep. Aaron Schock is a conservative Republican congressman from Illinois. He’s also become the target of persistent rumors regarding his sexuality. Up until the past few days, I believe those rumors swirled mostly because A) his fashion game is TIGHT – going way beyond “metrosexual” to “gurl, that turquoise belt is FABULOUS.” And B) because he’s a gym rat who takes care of his body to a crazy degree, and he’s even posed shirtless for a Men’s Health cover story. And that’s where we were up until a few days ago. So what happened?
Oddly enough, it seemed rather innocuous at first. Americablog.com ran a piece called “The 7 Gayest Aaron Schock Instagram posts of 2013.” Obviously, the blog took screencaps of some of Schock’s Instagrams with some minimal commentary. It was funny because Rep. Schock is all about promoting homophobic legislation – he doesn’t want the LGBT community to be protected in hate crimes legislation, he opposed the repeal of DADT, he opposed the repeal of DOMA and he’s for a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would constitutionally ban gay marriage. So, Americablog was just having some fun, I thought, especially when they pointed out that Schock was also following Tom Daley on Twitter (lol). But then Schock shut down his Instagram account and un-followed Daley and then one journalist, Itay Hod, “outed” Schock on Facebook. Here’s the post:
people always say, no one has the right to out anyone. that coming out is a private matter. i disagree. as you can imagine, not a very popular opinion. but bear with me.
here’s a hypothetical: what if you know a certain GOP congressman, let’s just say from Illinois, is gay… and you know this because one of your friends, a journalist for a reputable network, told you in no uncertain terms that he caught that GOP congressman and his male roommate in the shower… together. now they could have been good friends just trying to conserve water. but there’s more. what if this congressman has also been caught by tmz cameras trolling gay bars. now what if you know that this very same guy, the darling of the gop, has also voted against repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, opposed the repeal of doma, is against gay marriage; and for the federal marriage amendment, which would add language to the us constitution banning gay marriage and would likely strike down every gay rights law and ordinance in the country?
Are we still not allowed to out him?
let me ask another question… doesn’t the media have an OBLIGATION to expose his hypocrisy? if he had done something so hypocritical and he wasn’t gay, wouldn’t we demand journalists do their job? but they can’t… because we won’t let them. you’re not allowed to out ANYONE, we tell them.
we’ve created a situation where even though news organizations know this guy is gay, they can’t report it because he hasn’t said so on twitter.
if we keep saying that being gay is genetic; ergo, it’s no different than having blue eyes or blonde hair… than why are not allowed to mention it? why do we need anyone’s consent to talk about their sexuality? are we not allowed to say someone has blue eyes until they post a fb message telling us they are in fact blue?
we’ve been so effective at convincing everyone that outing people is a crime against humanity, that we’ve made it impossible for any network or news organization to talk about this “hypothetical” gay republican congressman and his hypocritical vote against gay rights. they won’t touch it for fear of retribution from GLAAD or HRC. (in fact when my friend’s network interviewed said hypothetical republican, he talked about wanting to find a nice woman to marry… and the network aired it… knowing it was a lie…
so, forgive me if I don’t subscribe to the notion that you’re not allowed to out anyone… in fact in some cases, i’d celebrate it.
So, is this all very, very wrong? Should we never “out” anyone before they’re ready? Or do we need a different set of rules when the person being outed against their will is a public figure, a public servant, who publicly champions anti-LGBT legislation? I tend to think this is all fair game of Schock, but I’m open to other arguments.
Photos courtesy of Schock’s now deleted Instagram, Men’s Health.
Oh my…I thought you were exaggerating about the belt. My gaydar pinged so loud, it gave me a headache.
….and he thought no one would realize he was gay?…..honey please…
True. I saw the shirt and then noticed the belt. Sorry but no straight man would ever wear that (otherwise stunning) outfit. I agree with Greata – everyone is going to realize he is gay with clothes like that. Sometimes the stereotypes are true. I would have thought if he didn’t want his sexual preference to become a discussion point, he would have stuck to a more neutral wardrobe palate.
HAHAHAHAH I had the EXACT same reaction!!!
LOL! I know… I mean….the pants too.
LOL! I missed this post but LOL for real right now about the pants. Dead give away.
“I would have thought if he didn’t want his sexual preference to become a discussion point, he would have stuck to a more neutral wardrobe palate.”
My thoughts exactly. And wow am I blown away by his anti-gay agenda, seemingly so at odds with his (apparently) true persona. It’s funny and but also really sad…actually more sad than funny the more I think about it.
They’re usually the worse offenders. So scared of being outed that they burrow even further into the closet. He’ll come clean, eventually, but then he won’t have the power to repeal the hateful and exclusionary legislation he helped to enact.
That is what he wore to the White House picnic! And after the picture went viral, for obvious sartorial reasons, he tweeted that he burned the belt.
http://gawker.com/5563925/rep-aaron-schock-has-burned-his-gay-teal-belt
Sad, he couldn’t even wear his belt proudly.
Is this dude kidding? The ultra pink shirt, turquoise belt AND white pants?! I just can’t even….
“…there is no such thing as a straight man with visible abdominal muscles. You have to suck c@#k to get that kind of muscle definition. It doesn’t work for women. You know, I tried, OK?” Margaret Cho.
Any POLITICIAN who PERSONALLY AFFECTS the PERSONAL LIVES of their constituents deserves no PERSONAL PRIVACY on the same issues with which they have INTERFERED with OTHERS’ PRIVACY in the SAME REGARD.
I love the hypocrites who are all about defending Aaron Schock’s privacy in this circumstance, but they turn a blind-eye to the PRIVATE LIVES that are affected by Aaron Schock’s public pronouncements against LGBT issues.
I couldn’t agree with you more, that was very well said. I can’t top your comment, so all I have left to say is this:
” *Gasp* An ultra-conservative, hetero-sexist Republican who’s CLOSETED??? I’m shocked!” said no one.
Judging by that loud belt, I’d say he’s so far in the closet that if he steps back any further he might find himself in Narnia 😉
I agree with you as well. I don’t think it’s fair to out the average joe or celebrity who is just sorta minding their own business (and not dating someone who has no idea for like 10 years, I also think that’s low). But this guy and people like this? Hell yes.
I love this comment so much! Generally, I believe that even public figures have the right to keep their sexual preference private but when you are legislating on these issues, making laws that have real impact and interfering in the private lives of others- you should be subject to that sort of scrutiny.
Also, I am pretty sure that the belt he is sporting in that last picture was manning a float in the pride parade so I’m pretty sure his preference wasn’t much of a secret.
Amen!
Absolutely agree with this.
Brava!! Bravissima!
He does have great style, imo!
I’d side eye anyone wearing that belt. A hard Empress Zahara side eye.
Now THAT made me laugh
Oh hush. He’s as hetero as Putin 😉
Just another form of gay-shaming.
By gay-shaming, are you referring to what Schock is doing to fellow members of the LGBT community? Cause that is absolutely reprehensible.
I read Kaboom as pertaining to all the offensively stereotypical media free for all on Two Face’s wardrobe. I agree the gleeful running commentary on his clothing choices are gay shaming.
No I’d shame any man who wore a teal belt.
You need to clarify your comment, it’s very vague. What is another form of gay-shaming? Discussing his sartorial style or outting him?
I feel bad for him. That much self hate must be wearing on him.
He’s headed for a Kony 2012 style naked public breakdown with all that hate.
Seriously. I said something to that effect above but you put it more concisely. 🙂
I agree. It must be incredibly difficult having Republican values, but also to be aware that something that is part of you, the party you identify with, are not in favour of. Or, just simply, can’t see that there is no issue with how you identify your sexuality.
I just don’t understand why both parties need to have such polarising opinions on things. Why can’t you be both pro LGBT rights, but also pro minimal Government spending and involvement? It just seems as thought you have to either agree with everything the Republicans state or everything the Democrats state. Why can’t politicians on both sides accept that things are never that black and white?
Because Libruls are ruining this God-fearing country, dammit!
Sadly, we have our religion and our politics so tightly interwoven that in order to win a Republic primary, you must be a gun totin’, God fearin’, heterosexual, (usually) white (usually) man.
Inky, Because that would require discourse, and knowledge of their subject, and I think most politicians are more bureaucrats (if anything) than intellectuals or policy wonks. You hear of a few here and there known for their ability to have a dialogue and cross the aisle, but for the most part politicians just tow the line. It’s a sad fact of our current system.
i kinda feel bad for him. still think is horrendous that he doesn’t support LGBT rights if he is gay.
BUT
a couple of years ago i waited on him at restoration hardware.
i’d heard rumors he was gay. seemed nice, even posed for a picture.
but the second he said he was looking for linen sheets i was like, GURL! c’mon you GAY!
It IS horrendous that he doesn’t support LGBT rights. This makes me question his entire character. How can he support and preach about causes that are polar opposite of his lifestyle? I’m totally assuming things here, but still… And I thought people got involved in politics to further causes they believed in, or that were close to their heart. What is his motivation? Part of me hates him for not supporting equality but part of me feels sorry for him if he is this repressed.
@Emmie – The only thing that makes any sense is that he may (/very likely) hate himself, & is trying to either deny he truth, or take out his conflicted frustrations on the community of people that represent the part of himself he hates & can’t escape from. It’s truly very sad, & I just hope he realizes this eventually.
No straight man would wear that outfit in the third picture.
I could see Beckham wearing it. Maybe even Bradley Wiggins. To my knowledge, they’re both straight. Tut tut at the generalisations, ladies…
Hmmm, I agree in theory, no one should be outed until they are ready.
However…if he wasn’t such an anti-gay rights campaigner I would say no instantly, but for me, right or wrong, it creates a grey area. If he hadn’t been such a blazing hypocrite, this wouldn’t have happened.
Yeah, this. I can just imagine how awful it must be to be outed before you’re ready…but if you’re purposely campaigning against the rights of people that are in the same position you are, I don’t have quite as much sympathy.
That is how I feel too, Erinn.
ITA completely.
I’ve been trying to formulate a comment on this, but you said it better than I could.
I don’t like anyone to be outed before they’re ready but if you’re using your power to legislate bigotry against a group you’re “secretly” a part of, all bets are off.
I think I feel the same way. I don’t like people outing others, but this guy is part of a movement to hurt a lot of people. Doesn’t make me have too much sympathy for him.
Exactly! I would feel sympathy if it was a private person or a public figure that just isnt vocal, But an asshole using his public position to legislate or speak hate re: sexual orientation? (Or kink or reproductive rights? Etc etc) Nah Homie at that point im gonna sit here point and cackle, fk the sanctity of your closet at that point (cc: Charlie Crist, Shep Smith, Larry Craig, Jim McCrery, Dan Gurley, George Rekes Et.al)
I disagree. I’m against outing ANYONE. Yes, even people like this guy who are actually hurting gay people with their policies. Because do we really want gay kids, when they’re looking for gay role models, to immediately think about someone like this congressman? Someone who hates themselves so much? Is this really a good example for gay kids?
Also, I feel bad for him because this self-hatred must be so painful and so hard to live with. What are we achieving with outing someone like that, if not petty revenge? It doesn’t solve anything and it’s horrible.
If you believe that homosexuality is genetic (which I do), then outing the man at this point, I think, is craven. If it were a life style “choice” then I would say, hell, yeah. But this goes to his core identity. He may be a lowlife, I don’t know, but at this point, his politics are not enough of a reason to expose him.
I would love to hear the opinion of other gays about this, because, really, I am not in a position to have an informed opinion on this conundrum.
I disagree with you Myrto. Speaking as a bisexual man, this guy doesn’t deserve an empathy for me. He has enough power to affect the lives of people and the destiny of family with his terrible actions and decissions. His hipocrisy doesn’t have any pass just because his alleged “self-hatred”. ¿Revenge? Possible, but again, as a congressman his actions have terrible implications to the lives of others and make a vulnerable group as a second hand citizens. It’s like compensate some Jews who were part of the Nazi Party and have bloody hands against other Jews, just because their “self-hatred”.
Having self-hatred doesn’t excuse the actions against another people.
I’m feeling the same way. Normally don’t think people should be outed at all and have a right to privacy, but…when someone actively works to take away rights and treat people like 2nd class citizens…let’s just say I might not put the info out there myself if I discovered it, but I don’t exactly feel bad for the guy.
Agreed!
Totally agree.
This all seems moot to me. Those plaid pants outed him for sure. And you’re right. That belt IS fabulous!
I kind of love the belt. But I’m also a 23 year old girl, so there’s that 🙂
I love the belt as well . . . but am a 1970’s born gal. Timeless in teal, I guess.
Love it when republicans or any politician for that matter, get called out for hypocrisy and if he was fronting like he wasn’t gay why is he wearing that pink gingham shirt with a very loud turquoise belt?
Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Do you consider heterosexuality a virtuous characteristic?
No, she calls being gay and having gay relations while actively campaigning against gay rights in every sector of American life hypocritical. Reading comprehension.
I think when people refer to him as a hypocrite they are referring more to this definition:
Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. For example an alcoholic’s advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of sobriety.
He actively campaigns to remove the rights of gay Americans. he doesn’t want the LGBT community to be protected in hate crimes legislation, he opposed the repeal of DADT, he opposed the repeal of DOMA and he’s for a Federal Marriage Amendment, which would constitutionally ban gay marriage.
So by that definition, he is a hypocrite.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
hyp·o·crite [hip-uh-krit]
noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English ipocrite < Old French < Late Latin hypocrita < Greek hypokritḗs a stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equivalent to hypokrī́ ( nesthai ) (see hypocrisy) + -tēs agent suffix
Related forms
hyp·o·crit·i·cal, adjective
su·per·hyp·o·crite, noun
Synonyms
deceiver, dissembler, pretender, pharisee.
He fits, he totally fits those 2 definitions.
Words don't often have only one narrow meaning, Kaboom.
We don’t know if he fits either.
I don’t know if he’s pretending or not. I don’t know if he’s feigning anything. Maybe he really does believe those things. I don’t know. I do think it a bit strange that a gay man (if he is and I’m with most people when I say that those photos certainly paint a picture!) espouses things that would negatively impact him personally, but it’s been done before and it will be again.
He got outed from a glass closet–one look at that last picture, especially, and you’d have to be like my elderly aunties (“I just can’t believe that a nice boy like Liberace was gay!”) not to know.
Shame on him for supporting anti-LGBT legislation. SHAME on him for that.
Yes shame on him for supporting legislation that would be of personal detriment to him. How dare he not push for laws that make him better off?
“Laws that make him better off”?
Surely you mean “laws that grant equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation”. You cannot possibly be that narrow-minded, can you?
I’m trying to understad too, how would anti-LGBT laws make him better off? I think what he’s doing is pretty awful. That’s like me being a woman and saying “oh yes those girls and woman in the Middle East shouldn’t be allowed to go to school or drive. Not only should they not be allowed to I’ll start a petition to make sure it doesn’t happen” I mean who does that, who tries to hurt something that is a part of themselves? I agree with previous posters who say that he must be saddled with extreme self-hatred.
Shame on him is absolutely correct. Shame on him for promoting laws that make bigotry and discrimination legal, and trying to insert his religious views into other people’s lives, relationships and families.
Kaboom, I appreciate sarcasm. Do you mean to be facetiously asking how dare Aaron Schock oppose laws that are in his self interest?
Some principled politicians in the past have voted in their constituents’ interests and against their own agenda. For instance, voting against tax breaks for a military supply company that you own stock in would actually be a principled stand.
I get Kaboom’s point.
Well, that’s one interpretation. Another was that he was hugely unwilling to sacrifice the social, financial and reputational advantages of being a white straight male in our society, and was willing not only to lie to the people voting for him, but to actively oppress other gay people in order to protect his own continued privilege.
It all depends on what you think “benefits” him most really, doesn’t it.
Maybe if some people grew the hell up and didn’t require a “type” to only have certain political views they wouldn’t be so interested in someone’s personal life.
It’s beyond the intellectual capacity of many on the left to grasp the idea that being “A” doesn’t require “A” to assume prescribed viewpoints. Bigotry is really ugly. I hope this guy stays true to himself. Whatever that means.
Oh, LadyL. Ruined a good post with “many on the left”. If you want to get into a right/left discussion about bigotry, feel free. Personally I’d like to stick to the topic.
and maybe if a certain political party stopped trying to legislate people’s personal lives and sex lives of consenting adults, people wouldn’t be so interested in the personal life of a member of that party.
You are right LadyL. It is really beyond my intellectual capacity to understand how you (might) be a closeted gay man who endorses legislation which takes away the civil rights of other gay men (and women). I am really unable to understand why this behaviour would be considered appropriate or desirable. Also, I don’t understand how the views expressed on this page constitute bigotry? Please explain all this to me, because I really don’t understand.
I have a pic of me with that the same belt .Mine was pink and I was 10 it was the early nineties so don’t judge me.
No judgment here, I think everybody growing up in the early 90’s had a belt like that 😉
I still have mine. Only it’s off white with silver whipstitching. And it’s GREAT.
Didn’t I see that belt on Jane Fonda over a neon pink leotard doing aerobics ??
Paige,
*gulp* . . . . . no?
Not cool to out him I don’t think. Disagree with him fine but I tho k it’s over the line. Is it really gaining any “side” points by doing this? If his views are wrong, they are wrong whether he is gay or not. While I disagree with his political views, I don’t think he is necessarily hypocritical for having them.
Coming out (if he is actually gay, I don’t know and I don’t care) is up to him to do.
I can understand the frustration of the people he is campaigning against (as well as those who support civil liberties). It makes me a little uncomfortable to having people gleefully pointing the finger at him as a gay man, although again I understand the frustration and the confusion about why he promotes homophobic legislation. He either sees the party as a means to his own ends, truly believes that homosexuality is wrong (and is facing an internal struggle) or is in deep denial. Don’t they say that people hate most in other people what they truly hate in themselves?
Birdix, like many people said before, being a politician has responsabilities and unless he has a pistol under his head, he act rationally and these votes have serious implications in lives of millions. Too bad that he has issues, but many honest people can be affected for his irresponsability and greed. The pity for him is only a complicity for his terrible actions.
I’m generally not for “outing”, but he’s a public figure representing a group with specific agendas. On the other hand, I suppose if I allow for philosophical differences, I could, perhaps, understand his “hate crime” position (even though I believe the opposite). But I don’t comprehend why he would be against others having the right to marry. Is it because of some economic reasons, or is it a religious stance against gay sex/relationships, in general? If that’s the case, if the story is true about the shower, then he is a bona fide hypocrite who wants rights for himself, but not for others, and he should be called out on it.
Yeah I completely agree.
If it IS a religious stance, then it’s pretty hypocritical.
Not cool to out him I don’t think. Disagree with him fine but I think it’s over the line. Is it really gaining any “side” points by doing this? If his views are wrong, they are wrong whether he is gay or not. While I disagree with his political views, I don’t think he is necessarily hypocritical for having them.
Coming out (if he is actually gay, I don’t know and I don’t care) is up to him to do.
Coming out (if he is actually gay, I don’t know and I don’t care) is up to him to do.
Yep…none of my business.
Well, lets’ say you have a staunch politician who is fighting against reproductive rights, who shames those who have had abortions, but has had multiple abortions themselves and continues to do so, in their private life, wouldn’t that be something the public should know? I don’t know enough about this pol to say that he has met that level of “do as I say, not as I do”, but if he has, then he should be outed.
Kiddo, this is, as usual, an astute point.
It’s different, because having abortions is a choice. Being gay is not.
bluhare, there is choice in advocating or not advocating, and living a particular lifestyle contrary to what you are dictating to the public, through law.
Point taken re advocating, Kiddo.
If I am represented by a politician who votes against my views, I will vote for someone else. I don’t care that much what they believe, I care how they vote in Congress.
Holy Jeebus, that’s the gayest belt-outfit I’ve ever seen. Yes, all is fair in love and politics, so let the guy shower with his roomie, and let those whose job it is to expose egregious hypocrisy and discrimination publish away. When you choose to be a public figure, particularly in politics, you know that you will be open to immense scrutiny about your personal life, which is totally fair when you are attempting to push a “moral” agenda down the throats of 300 million people. Also, this dude made the media rounds a few years back, creating an image of himself as a hot sexy playa who wants to be YOUR representative, so it’s not exactly like he’s been undesirous of media attention, hell no, he took his shirt off and went looking for it!
On a kind of related note, I once dated and had for a friend a guy who I eventually realized was gay. Really handsome, very buff, a total gym rat. Out of the blue one day at work, while thinking of nothing of a social or sexual nature, the epiphinal thought entered my brain that being a workout buff was a great way for gay men to check out other hot, fit men on the sly while doing something that is societally sanctioned as a “masculine” activity. Over many years of experience with body building folks, I honestly think many if not most hard-core builders are closeted gay men, I truly do.
OUT HIM. OUT HIM. I said the same for that pastor (forget his name now) who was preaching “pray the gay away” and “homosexuality is an abomination against christ and man” all while cheating on his wife with various hot men. When he was outed, I thought it was right. Gay teenagers are killing themselves at appalling rates because of douchebags like him. Not only SHOULD the media out these hypocrites, they have an OBLIGATION to do so.
You are so right, Latisse. Outing The Duplicitous Don could save many lives.
Yes! Exactly, I am in complete agreement that someone who is gay should not be outed until they are ready UNLESS that person is directly propagating and benefitting from a stance that is completely detrimental to the quality of life of young gay children.
That outfit though.
If those candid pics don’t scream gay, I don’t know what does. He should just be openly gay and fabulous, I bet he’d be way more fun. The media usually loves to expose politicians “bad” behavior, I’m surprised they haven’t jumped on this.
OMG that shirt, those pants … that belt !!
GURL PULLLEASE … he outed himself with that (otherwise fabuloso) outfit !
The greatest thing about having A.D.D iis being able to have completely contradictory opinions on a subject.
Thought 1: I think it’s horrible for someone to be outed before they are ready to reveal that themselves. Sadly, we still live in a world were some nut jobs think you can pray the gay away. We live in a world where members of the LGBT community are not just treated as less than other but are persecuted and harassed for it. I can understand why someone may not want to reveal and it is up to them when, if ever, they are going to come out.
Thought 2: The world is moving forward. As hard as some might try to throw us back to the 1800s, progress is moving us forward. I wish we could just destroy the friggin’ closet. We haven’t heard one world from Taylor Swift or Harry Styles that they came out as heterosexual. Why do we still allow a double standard and insist members of the LGBT community have to share their sexuality with us? Why do we not only allow , but insist on this ridiculous double standard? If we stop treating non-heterosexuality as other , as so different we need to be warned, this will be a non-issue. I am working towards the day when this is a non-issue.
Thought 3: Screw this hypocritical, self hating, moron. As a public figure with voting power to impact the lives of others, he is held to a higher standard. Everyone was all about Clinton’s antics and those of Gary Hart, because somewhere there is some litmus test of morality that applies only to Washington. If they were fair game, this tool is fair game.
Does he stay in the closet out of self hatred or because he needs to be re-elected? A few terms in office may not lead to higher office but it almost always leads to a very high paying ‘consulting’ position in some think tank or lobbying organization.
I don’t care what this ratdick’s motives are; his ends do not justify the means.
Excellent post, Abbicci.
Thanks, Sloane. That’s high praise coming from you.
And I will be stealing ratdick. I’ve been alternating between dickspurt and dickhole recently. I think ratdick will fit nicely in the rotation.
Great post!
On your second thought, interesting point. I had that very discussion with my sister, I’m straight, she’s not. I basically stated your exact argument, that it didn’t matter, why did public figures feel the need to announce their homosexuality and not their heterosexuality?
My sister completely disagreed, and it stems back to your first thought, actually. She personally felt so much doubt, insecurity and fear of discrimination in her own head before she even dreamed of coming out that celebrities, well-respected public figures announcing that they were not only gay, but publicly gay and proud of it offer a type of support and encouragement. So it’s not neccessarily being branded as gay, it’s a type of solidarity offer for people that aren’t sure of what to expect next.
Now this was entirely her response to our personal conversation and I’m not proposing at all that that’s how everyone feels across the board but it made sense to me, at least.
Miffy, I completely understand your sister’s perspective. I am grateful that so many public figures are able to speak out and just plain be themselves publicly. I love when someone like Jim Parsons just adds ‘ as a gay man’ to an answer in an interview. We are past the days when so few people came out, that when they did it was the cover of People magazine. Now it’s just a few words and BOOM! OUT! That makes me happy, that shows progress.
In my pie in the sky future this will no longer be an issue. Sadly, right now it is still an issue. I appreciate every public figure coming out. it give every LGBT teenager hope. Something in short supply for many of these kids. I can’t imagine walking through the day thinking that if my parents/teachers/friends/neighbors knew who I really am that they would hate me. It breaks my heart just thinking about it.
Think that’s a pie in the sky future everyone would like to see, Abbicci
Hold contradictory views isn’t a ADD thing, it’s an intelligence thing :):
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see things as hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.
— F. Scott Fitzgerald ”
And normally I wouldn’t like people to be outed unless/until they’re ready, but his anti-LGBT policies made it more likely that he would be outed.
Wow. I must be really, really smart! I’ll go to work on cold fusion and string theory after lunch.
I didn’t give a tinker’s dn what Clinton did with his cock–his cock, not my business. I did care about what took place in the Oval Office because it was not HIS office. It was the office of The President of the United States of America, and cigar insertions and blowjobs had no place there.
Politicians since before the Gary Hart “Monkey Business” days have been outed as philanderers, so why not out equally hypocritical gay politicians? However, hypocrisy on its own should NEVER be outed, it’s the doing harm to others in the name of your false self that should always be exposed in the court of public opinion.
Outing a single person or a polyamorous person going about their personal life is one thing, but this shadily dangerous double dealing is like a public figure claiming to be an eco warrior when in truth they secretly own an oil well. It’s like a Jewish person advocating pro skinhead legislation. It’s like Michael Vick being portrayed as an animal rights supporter.
To clarify once again, in NO WAY am I comparing being gay or being privately gay to being a bad person. I’m trying to say in my rather clumsy fashion that lying about yourself and then cynically using your phony podium for evil should always be brought to light. Those who wish to keep their private life private (while doing no harm to others in the name of your false self) should NEVER be a ‘story’ for public consumption.
I agree. The victims of this hypocritical politician and the the policies he endorses and laws he votes for, should never have to stay silent about anything he does. It’s like imposing Stockholm Syndrome on them. Who is he to complain, in any case. He doesn’t believe gay people have rights, according to his voting record!
The only sense I can make of this is that pre-campaign polling indicated that running as a Republican must have been his best shot at winning the election.
If my theory is correct, it means he never supported the Republican platform and has conned his constituents.
Therefore, I can make an exception in this case and support him being out-ed against his will.
With that belt-outfit, the guy outed himself.
I would love to see politicians working towards a world where LGBT people weren’t killing themselves, being bullied/killed/victims of hate crimes and where all people had the same rights to marry. Sigh. People like this man are doing everything they can to stand in the way of that. I despise a hypocrite.
While I completely disagree with his anti-gay stance, outing him will do nothing more than ostracize a gay man from his right wing colleagues, it’s not going to promote gay rights or pro-gay legislation, it’s just going to ruin one man’s career (even though it’s his own fault for having built that career at the expense of the LGBT community). There’s very little positivity that can come from it, you can’t even say that at least it’s one less voice in a position of power against LGBT rights because, unfortunately, there are plenty more willing to take his place. So based on the theory that if there’s nothing positive to gain here and this is fuelled by nothing other than vindictive behaviour, then no. Leave it alone. Leave him alone.
If it’s true, I’m not entirely sure what his agenda is. As another poster said, that’s a lot of self-hatred to carry around.
“There’s very little positivity that can come from it, you can’t even say that at least it’s one less voice in a position of power against LGBT rights because, unfortunately, there are plenty more willing to take his place.” – Miffy
I disagree.
“We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.” – Mother Teresa
Good point, Sloane.
But I just feel in this instance two wrongs don’t make a right, ruining a man’s career and public persona for being gay isn’t going to promote gay rights. It’s just going to damage one man’s life. It’s not really promoting a healthy public attitude towards the LGBT community by publicly dragging one man kicking and screaming out of the closet and promoting his homosexuality as something negative, the righteousness at exposing hypocrisy could very easily be misinterpreted as righteousness at exposing homosexuality by vulnerable members of the LGBT community AND hardcore right-wingers willing to twist a situation to suit their agenda. It has the potential to send a counter-productive message, is what I’m long-windedly getting at.
However, there have been some excellent points made here. A previous poster stated that what if it was a congressman promoting legislation against abortion while having had several abortions themselves. I’m just not sure. But that’s the great thing about this site, intelligent posters!
“It has the potential to send a counter-productive message, is what I’m long-windedly getting at.”
IKR, Miffy. If Faux News can massage this into some incredibly credible twisted point, they will. They’ll do that with everything though.
F*ck, I’ve got a neighbor like that, and I just try avoid them. Willful ignorance blooms without planting.
“Those who are unaware they are walking in darkness will never seek the light.” – Bruce Lee
Well, this isn’t new in the sense that American politician’s personal lives have always been up for public scrutiny/consumption, whether it be affairs, infidelity, prostitutes, sexting, blow jobs in the white house, etc.
With the changing of the social and political climate and a trend to a more accepting stance towards homosexuals, I suppose it’s natural that sexual orientation will be up for discussion as well.
I do think it’s more relevant than say, a celeb’s sexuality, in the sense that politicians are in a position to push for legislation that grants equality to the oppressed.
I mean, if a politician is representing an image of wholesome family man, but is cheating on his wife, we would take issue with that.
I don’t know…..I think maybe he should be forthright about his sexual orientation, unless he’s just incredibly ashamed or fears repercussion from the GOP, which is very sad in either case.
Repercussions from the GOP is my vote. He may hold very conservative views. In other than men’s fashion that is.
i kinda feel bad for him. still think it is horrendous that he doesn’t support LGBT rights if he is gay.
BUT
a couple of years ago i waited on him at restoration hardware.
i’d heard rumors he was gay. seemed nice, even posed for a picture.
but the second he said he was looking for linen sheets i was like, GURL! c’mon you GAY!
My issue isn’t that he simply isn’t supporting them but he’s actively campaigning AGAINST them.
My issue isn’t that he simply isn’t supporting them but he’s actively campaigning AGAINST them.
BIG difference
Exactly. For example, philandering is a grand tradition in politics, but provided it has no effect on policies that alter our lives or rob taxpayers’ $$$, I figure they’ll be judged elsewhere. On t’other hand, when a pol who supports “Morality” bills that impact citizens’ private lives/quality of life proves to be a Tartuffe? Heck yeah, let a girl/boyfriend or eyewitnesses expose the intrusive phony.
Any power figure who works to suppress a substantial population such as LGBTs–while they are themselves secretly members of that population–is dangerous. Allowing rumors to remain floating under the surface because s/he’s still toeing the platform of “OUR Team” adds to the illness in our political system & further erodes peoples’ faith in their political efficacy.
As for outing celeb LGBTs (or any of their consulting adult-type bedroom preferences, IMO)? Of course not. 1st of all, the old “Hey! Heteros don’t have to ‘Out’ themselves” argument doesn’t hold water: people are almost never subject to bigotry or career ruin for preferring the opposite sex. When gay celebs do choose to come out, it can benefit others & the public as a whole to increase acceptance–but in our present-day culture, an outed performer, athlete, etc risks destroying his livelihood; becoming uncloseted should be their own choice. And when they do so, it is not an obligation; it tends to be a political/cultural statement. made when they feel relatively safe due to their popularity or nature of their career (or often, the simple fact that their audience won’t be particularly surprised).
Sorry for writing a full novel here… But like many readers, this is not a topic I can comment on in a twitter-length sentence (& in my case, I get even more verbose than usual ;-P ).
I don’t understand this post or the comments that are of the distinction “well, I usually don’t support outing but in this case I do.” Quit trying to front and just own up to it. You cannot be for outing person ‘A’ and not person ‘B’. Because then you’re as much of a hypocrite as Schock is allegedly being. Outing should not be happening, and certainly not from members of the media. If Schock is that self-hating that’s even more of a reason to not out him against his will. Disagreeing with him on politics is still not enough of a reason to justify outing him. What if does harm to himself over this? Nobody thinks about the consequences of their actions and they realky shoikd, particularly when it comes to outing people. How is outing anyone helpful to advancing a society to encouragr our young gay kids to be true to themselves?
On a side note, quit pretending like politics are never covered on this site. typically every week there is either a post or a snark comment usually about republican politicians within a celebrity post. Which is totally the right of authors of this site but it’s time to own it.
Sorry, but there are distinctions. Someone pushing particular legislation is different than the guy down the street, a newscaster or a celebrity, particularly when they are behaving contrarily to what they are mandating for the citizenry.
Schrock consistently votes against LGBT. So outing him this way may mean the end of his right-wing pandering, fund-raising and career. That will do a LOT of good for the LGBT community. See how that works?
His politics are not a reason to out him. Outing is cruel. If he’s in the closet that is his choice and nobody else’s. Being tolerant means being accepting and compassionate of that until he is ready to publicly discuss it.
It’s funny that you keep referring to tolerance, acceptance and compassion when he seems to be doing everything to squash these very things when it comes to gay individuals rights.
Does he think about tolerance, acceptance and compassion when he reads about someone who is beaten to death for being gay, and then votes against making crimes like this hate crimes?
Does he think about tolerance, acceptance and compassion when he votes against DADT, thus opening people who defend, serve their country bravely to discrimination, harassment and ridicule?
There’s a level of transparency that’s expected of politicians, so I doubt being outed is coming as a “schock” (sorry couldn’t resist 😉 ) to him.
Every politician prepares (him or her)self for the likelihood of their personal lives being scrutinized–it comes with the territory.
The only true way to ensure that his private life remain private is to avoid the political sphere entirely.
Mrs. D, as a congressman HE didn’t response to the tolerance. Otherwise HE voted AGAINST the gay rights and HE was in favor in discriminate gays in the Army. Mrs. D are you in favor of him, especially when he act terrible and his actions affect many families and people? Especially in a moment where the bullying and deaths of young gay men and women are up, this man didn’t make a favor for the cause.
“What if does harm to himself over this?”
yeah, like all those suicidal teens who are that way because of being bullied by people like this guy. being told over and over, by members of the public and member of our gov’t and members of their church that they’re not equal, legally, to a hetero, or that they should kill themselves or they’re going to hell.
“Nobody thinks about the consequences of their actions and they realky shoikd, particularly when it comes to outing people.”
or, you know, when it comes to legislating against people’s basic civil rights.
Tiffany:)
“if we keep saying that being gay is genetic; ergo, it’s no different than having blue eyes or blonde hair… than why are not allowed to mention it?”
In my opinion, the answer to this question that we don’t know if they were having a single gay experience, if they are bisexual, or if they’re actually gay. only the person knows how to answer that for themselves
Oh, he’s a hypocrite for sure, and an idiot BUT I don’t think it’s right to out anyone before they’re ready because it is life altering, whether you agree with their stances or not.
Voting against LGBT rights is also life-altering, to the community and their families. Maybe he didn’t consider that! It will be interesting to see how many Conservative Republicans support him now!
It should still be his choice to be a self hating hypocritical closeted gay man. Sorry; I understand your point but I don’t think anyone should be outed against their will. With one exception. Religious people preaching hate.
It will permanently warm the cockles of my cold, dead heart to find out the leader, or someone very close to him, of Westboro Baptist is gay. If there’s anyone who deserves to be involuntarily outed its’s a member of that organization. I can’t even call it a church.
bluehare, Aaron Schock is at the same level like these religious people. His actions, made by hate (Maybe for himself) do a lot of damage against a vulnerable people. Like the Westboro Baptist made with his speech, Schock with his agenda discriminate and hurt other people -Even I can say he’s worse-. I said in another post – A self-hated Jew who came as a big collaborator for the Nazi Party and accused another Jews, didn’t he deserve a punishment just because he’s Jew, even when his hipocresy damaged another Jews?
Hmmm, you know, just because he’s GAY (in the closet) doesn’t necessarily mean that he has to agree with gay marriage, et cetera… So I can understand his reasoning (although I don’t agree with it) behind his promotion of homophobic legislation.
But I do think it boils down to self-hate. And what a pity too since it’s obviously clear that he is in fact gay. It doesn’t see him like he was “hiding” or if he was, he was doing a bad job at it.
I think you would need to know the reasons for his philosophy on the gay marriage issue. I can’t say, because I don’t know. But often pols will insist that it is some definition of marriage derived from the bible, about only being between a man and a woman, that it is okay to be gay, but not practice gayness (love the sinner, hate the sin). But if you are a ‘practicing’ homosexual, then you are not comporting yourself with the origin of the philosophy, so then your entire argument for legislation is a fraud.
I agree with you. This is about self-loathing and shame. Unfortunately, he’s a politician and a Republican…so people are bound to point out his hypocrisy as he promotes and pushes an anti-gay agenda while hiding in the safety and sanctity of his closet. It’s people like him who actually create a repressive and oppressive society for gay people because it encourages people to hide rather than be truthful. Life is too short and ephemeral to live a lie. And on the subject of his picnic ensemble: well any of the elements would be questionable..the loud turquoise belt, the tight, white jeans or the carefully ironed, pink gingham shirt…but together? It’s like gurl…please. Actually, I think his clothing choices are a way of passively rebelling against not being able to live his life, out and proud including his flamboyant clothing choices.
Ladyray, it’s not only for “the gay marriage”. He voted against the repeal of the “Don’t ask don’t tell” which is a clear measure of discrimination and he voted against the bills against discrimination, leaving them in a precarious situation. Even he didn’t do anything right when we had the wave of suicides of gay teenagers. That’s the conceirn.
Ladyray, imagine a Western country where they selected for the first time a woman as a chief of State. Many women believed her to change their situation. Unfortunally, this woman approved the worst laws against women: No contraceptive methods under jail time -Under the idea for having “more children for the country”, no divorce law, no protection against domestic violence, no rape sanctions -Unless the woman was virgin-, no schoolarship for proper education… It happened in Argentina during the government of Isabel Martinez (Infamously known as the first woman selected as President in the Western World) during the 70s.
It’s exactly the same with Schock. If he didn’t care for the marriage, it’s O.K., but voting against laws to prevent and attack discrimination against LGBT people -Most of them, basic rights-, it’s just disgusting and deplorable.
Sexual orientation does not mandate specific political beliefs any more than gender does. There is no hypocrisy here. Did he confess his homosexuality while serving in the military? No. Did he marry another man? No. And as for marrying a woman, maybe he’s bisexual, or hates his own sexuality or any number of other possibilities. Either way, “outing” him is not good journalism.
What is his reasoning for being against gay marriage? I sincerely don’t know.
It’s for the votes so he can keep his job, and it’s for the money he’ll make as a lobbyist/lecturer later.
Well, yeah, but what are his public statements on the reasons?
@Kiddo, below is a youtube video with a mostly word for word transcript of him giving his reasons for not supporting marriage equality.
When asked why he doesn’t support gay marriage, Schlock replied, “Uh, well, I just haven’t.”
When further queried, “Is there a reason?”, he elaborated “I think everybody has a set of beliefs on issues, social issues in particular, that are a reflection of how they were raised and their set of beliefs. So, first I would say it’s more of my upbringing and my faith values…so that’s Number One. Number Two, I think we’re all a reflection of who we represent. Then, uh, Third, I think while you’re seeing some of these changes in laws is because people’s views in society have changed, but I just haven’t given it much (thought).”
It seems to me Schlock HAS given it ‘some thought’ as to why he’s opposed to marriage equality:
1. Upbringing & faith.
2. Representing his constituents.
3. Laws are changing because society’s changed, but he doesn’t give that ‘much thought’.
Aaron Schock on gay marriage – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST8JnDaYPZ8#t=12
Kiddo, I’ve never heard of the guy before today, but I’d bet on:
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
God thinks homosexuality is a sin.
Bring back the good old days of America where it was cool to hate everyone who is different than you! (Oops, that one’s mine.)
Sloane, that actually makes me feel more compassion towards him because he doesn’t seem committed, other than that someone told him to be that way or to say that. It’s a wishy-washy statement with no real appearance of dedication to the opinion, nor a real evaluation of why there is an adherence to that particular belief.
At any rate, the journalist didn’t class up the joint by spilling this information on FB with a ‘psst, psst I got a secret’-type of reveal. That is the purvey of gossip columns. It would have been more legit to offer proof and then have a request for comment, but that’s the way things go down these days.
Thanks, Sloane. So basically one can see his remarks in a couple of ways: 1. I am a servant of the people I represent; 2. I am a servile minion of the people I represent.
I felt some compassion for him too, Kiddo. In this youtube video, Schlock seemed from his deer in the headlights look and his overall demeanor to be kind of shellshocked.
Then, I reminded myself of the bewilderment and hurt his political stance must bring to gay kids discovering their emerging sexuality.
You’re welcome, Maven.
I see what you’re saying.
Back in HS government class, I seem to remember that the two distinct, yet acceptable, legislating styles were to represent your constituents’ views or to represent your own views. Of course, representing Big Corporate .5%ers wasn’t mentioned.
No doubt, Sloane. But if he is gay, then he is actually the poster child of the years of shame, degradation and lack of dignity given to gay people historically, which has traditionally forced them to pretend they are something they aren’t in order to avoid suffering harsh consequences. That is pathetically sad.
Thank you! Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to think that every gay person has the exact same views? There are plenty of women against legalized abortion, not every African American supports affirmative action etc…
Not hypocritical, but certainly painting people with one brush.
Uh yeah, it’s the definition of good journalism actually. And there is not nearly enough of that in the US today. Political figures should be held accountable for all the bullsh*t they propagate. Period. Did anyone think it was wrong for Anthony Weiner to be outed? No. Did anyone feel sorry for him? Not really. Did anyone think it was bad journalism? Maybe like three people. Pfft. If Bill Clinton can get impeached for gettin’ a little on the side and lying about it to the public, this dude can get called out for presenting a false stance on something he is actively partaking in.
Yep.
THIS!
Actually, I did. About Weiner. But then we’d never have had Carlos Danger so now I’m torn. 🙂
Yes, but…Bill Clinton was not impeached for ‘getting a little on the side and lying to the public’ – sorry, I’m a pedant, but that kind of stuff drives me crazy.
Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied to a grand jury during the course of a criminal investigation. And that impeachment (and the whole investigation, really) was b*llsh*t, but it was a different animal from outing someone on the internet because their private life doesn’t match their public persona.
And, yeah, Anthony Weiner had his supporters. He launched an almost comeback, so that tells you something.
It’s more than your “public persona” when you are actively and maliciously advocating for laws that hurt and oppress a group of individuals based on their sexual orientation. His sexual orientation is NOT a private matter when he is presenting himself as a candidate that actively works to hamper gay rights and impede the progress of LGBT people everywhere. And no matter what bureaucratic terms Bill was impeached under, either for his grand jury oath-breaking or in the eyes of the public, you are right… it was bullsh*t either way, which was my only point. It was completely appropriate for him to be outed (by a fellow LGBT person who would be adversely affected by the laws he wants to enable) and it is VERY much time the GOP shuts down its sanctimonious drivel when it comes to gay rights and reproductive rights. Sorry, I just don’t buy the public persona stuff for one minute. He’s a hypocrite. Most politicians are. I’m sure it’s difficult for them but the US public is tired of being condescended and lied to, as the Pew polls reveal how little faith we have in government. And for people getting hung up on the semantics of marriage and civil union… in this instance, it is abundantly clear that it refers to legal recognition of gay couples and equal treatment of them-what is the debate?
@Girlface: Yes, he is a absolute hypocrite. I agree with you on that. I think that marriage should be available to all consenting adults and that no one should be discriminated against due to sexual orientation. I would not vote for this man, not ever.
The only thing I disagree with you on is that I don’t think outing him will advance any LGBT issue at all. It might harm his career, true, but it will not change the mind of his constituents. It may actually give those who live in fear in the closet more reason to fear. I don’t think its appropriate because I don’t think outing anyone is appropriate.
The odd thing about this guy is that he was hardly hiding his true self. It was inevitable that this would happen some day.
How he handles it now will determine whether or not outing him helps or harms the LGBT community. I don’t believe in outing closeted individuals. I do believe in outing self-righteous, hypocritical politicians who are pushing oppressive laws.
GIRLFACE, he may be all those things, but you yourself say you don’t believe in outing closeted individuals. I don’t see how you can say that then undo it in the same sentence. This guy’s not only in the closet, it looks like he may have locked it from the inside. He may hate himself for being gay, and really believe what he’s doing atones for that. In which case outing him may do more damage to him than good. I don’t know what the answer is here, but I don’t think outing him is the solution.
YES it is. He is helping to shape policy based solely on his “feelings” that potentially affects millions of people’s private lives because his own makes him uncomfortable and that’s okay? Seriously? What is wrong with you people? Politicians deserve NO protection from public scrutiny… US Government 101 people
message to Aaron Schock: COME OUT ALREADY!! It gets better. Maybe the GOP won’t have you, but the Democrats aren’t so bad and you can live your life authentically. Or maybe he can lead changes within the GOP for gay people, I don’t know, but certainly think the closet is a sad and scary place to be.
“Or maybe he can lead changes within the GOP for gay people”
Something that Steve Gunderson tried to do:
“In 1994, Gunderson was outed as gay on the House floor by conservative then-representative Bob Dornan (R-CA) during a debate over federal funding for gay-friendly curricula,[4] making him one of the first openly gay members of Congress and the first openly gay Republican representative.[5] In 1996, Gunderson was the only Republican in Congress to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act,[6][7] and he has been a vocal supporter of gay rights causes since leaving Congress.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gunderson
I think when couples form a legal union/partnership, it should be defined as a ‘Civil Union’ across the board, and the rights should be consistent with homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Let the churches fight it out in terms of splitting hairs on “marriage”. Not every couple who forms a legal contract has Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs. Maybe then the country could move on past the stupid semantics, and leave religion in the churches, mosques and synagogues where they belong.
Really valid point.
For any same sex couples I know, it’s not about marriage per-say, it’s about being legally recognised as the person’s legal partner and all the rights, legalities, tax implications etc. that come with that, and that are afforded to hetero couples.
Well, I really think it should be applied to heterosexuals as well. Not everyone contemplates the legal commitment in terms of a religious context. That context should be in church, not in government. This way, the rights are not separate but equal, they are all equal to all, with no government mandated religious adherence. Those who choose to make the union have religious significance, can exercise that right within their own church. Remember, not only do we all have freedom of religion, but we also have freedom from religion, as established by the First Amendment.
I agree totally, Kiddo. Marriage is a construct for property accumulation and inheritance rights. It was never about love.
Okay instead of viewing things through the lens of gay/straight and outing think of things this way. If there were a Democratic politician who portrayed themselves as a champion for equality between the races-all are equal, there should be laws to protect people from racial discrimination ect…but in their home life it’s all N-bombs and fantasies that would make Paula Deen side eye them. Even advocating that crimes committed against those of other races aren’t hate crimes because that group is worthy of our hate and violence.
Would it be right to out them?
The moment this jackass started advocating that crimes against the LGBT community not be considered hate crimes he became open season. I for one will enjoy the schadenfreude of him being dragged out of his glass closet kicking and screaming so that he can be exposed as the self hating, reprehensible, despicable, waste of humanity he is to all of his hateful followers. When you advocate hate you don’t get handled with kid gloves.
I go to college here in his district (east central Illinois) where it’s basically Oklahoma down here. I’m really curious to know how locals are reacting. Rumors have been swirling for years, mostly everybody has been ignoring it.
As for whether or not he should have been outed, I see both sides. I’d be leaning towards yes if it was done as an investigative journalism piece, not a facebook post. Come on now. Be a professional.
The only issue I have with “outing” is the possibility that it’s incorrect.
This man may or may not have showered with his male roommate. He may have been experimenting. He might be gay, but he might not.
When we start using phrases like “He deserves it” we are on a slippery slope. Does anyone, regardless of their political stance, “deserve” to have their private life “outed”?
Where can we possibly draw the line here? We are supposed to live in a free society- that includes the “right” to be something in private we are not in public. That’s why it is “private”, after all. Everyone has the right to privacy, the right to not have pictures posted and made fun of because of how we dress, what we look like.
Someone said he is held to a higher standard because he is in a position of swaying votes, and thus changing our society, and I agree. Has this man done anything detrimental to our society thus far? Has he impacted something so severely that he “deserves” to have his privacy violated?
He might be a hypocrite. He might very well be in a position to facilitate change for gays, to stand up and be counted. Is he obligated to do so? No. Unfortunately, standing up for the rights of others is not common place, especially for those in a position of power. It points more to our failing as whole, not o the shoulders of one man.
So should we be “outing”people? My answer is No.
Do the people he represents have a “right” to know his personal life? No.
That’s why the word “personal” is there.
If it can happen the this man, it can happen to you. Rare is the person who walks the walk they talk, it’s very rare indeed.
If it can happen the this man, it can happen to you. Rare is the person who walks the walk they talk, it’s very rare indeed.
If i’m a politician, I have the lives of 300 millions of people in my hands and my actions will affect the lives of a vulnerable group, I can accept my life being osberved. Meanwhile, at my life as an average joe, I don’t have that power
Has this man done anything detrimental to our society thus far? Has he impacted something so severely that he “deserves” to have his privacy violated?
Uhmm, I don’t know. Maybe voting against a repeal for a discriminate measure -Don’t ask don’t tell- and doesn’t care about the lives and security of people and then promote an agenda which make clear the discrimination for a vulnerable group? Yes he made a great damage.
Unfortunately, standing up for the rights of others is not common place, especially for those in a position of power. It points more to our failing as whole, not o the shoulders of one man.
Even if he hadn’t a lot of power, he’s still with clear power and take responsability for his actions. It’s like making excuses for his behaviour and his hipocrisy.
Ok I don’t agree with this man’s political stance but it is TERRIBLE TO OUT SOMEONE. This is their personal business and shouldn’t be used to shame or threaten people which is what this person did.
caring for a fit body and wearing a turquoise belt doesn´t automatically make you gay.
That´s just a gay-cliché.
People are defending gay rights while promoting gay stereotypes.
hypocrites much?
If this truly is the case, there is a real dichotomy here that warrants public awareness. Existing in a privately homosexual lifestyle while publicly disenfranchising lesbian and gay rights screams uber hypocritical and underhanded. The two simply cannot coexist. He is a gorgeous man and my gaydar went into overdrive viewing the image w/ the teal belt. One love.
No, it’s not the right thing to do. I don’t believe in outing regardless of someone’s political views. Outing him might negatively impact his political future, but it isn’t going to change his constituents views, nor push the LGBT agenda forward one iota.
It does seem that he was barely hiding who he was and the revelation, such as it was, was probably inevitable.
I’m a little fascinated by these politicians who live on the edge. Anthony Weiner, Elliot Spitzer and now this guy – to name a few – all basically flaunting “secrets” that they have to know will come to light, particularly in this day and age. They must be adrenaline junkies.
Outing him might negatively impact his political future
As it was better having him… Suze, his voting record is terrible, and not only he’s making damage himself, he’s close to ruin lives. Maybe doesn’t change his constituent views but at least it will remark as a public value to know the hipocrisy and danger for millions.
I don’t understand your comment, Anna. I don’t understand the public value aspect. I mean, I get that we are discussing it here on a celebrity snark site, but that isn’t adding value to any LGBT issue. It just makes us feel good about ourselves.
Most of the regular media and press are ignoring it, and even Slate, a liberal online rag, had a headline that “no one cares about this guy being outed.”
Are you saying that exposing him will make his constituents vote differently? Will it change people’s minds about gay marriage? Will it change his mind and make him promote different policies? I don’t see any of these things happening and I don’t see the public value in this.
Are you saying that exposing him will make his constituents vote differently? Will it change people’s minds about gay marriage? Will it change his mind and make him promote different policies? I don’t see any of these things happening and I don’t see the public value in this.
I disagree with you Suze in this aspect. Being quiet like you pretend to do don’t help anything. Is it unfair? Maybe, but in the politic world you can take responsabilities and risks for values. I agree with Anna in the point that, reveal the true nature of a hypocrite like Schock can help a lot in a public mater.
I don’t understand your comment, Anna. I don’t understand the public value aspect. I mean, I get that we are discussing it here on a celebrity snark site, but that isn’t adding value to any LGBT issue. It just makes us feel good about ourselves.
Being politician means taking a big charge and take lives and destiny in your hands. So yes, his lies and actions have public value. Again like Anna said before maybe he’s only an small king but still has power to dicriminate someone of his “group”. This isn’t about of make us feel good, is trying to stop the bigotry of a congressman who used his power in danger of others.
Xas couldn’t explain better my opinion. And Sorry Suze, but if you think leave him like that is better, you can be part of the problem.
This isn’t about if he’s popular or powerful. This criticism came in line of the consecuences of his actions. And if we go for the origin of a politician is exactly that – Public matter.
@Anna – You aren’t sorry, so don’t say you’re sorry. Own your opinion. I respect your right to speak your mind and I don’t feel you should apologize for it. You do not need to apologize to me for having a differing opinion.
@XAS – If you think revealing the true nature of Aaron Schlock will progress the agenda of LGBT, then I see what you’re saying. I don’t agree with you, but I understand where you’re coming from.
Who cares if he’s gay? It’s the Republican part that would bother me.
You guys are SO intolerant here. I guess if they agree with you, you would never consider outing. I have a lesbian friend who does not believe in gay marriage, she’s not a Christian, she is a pagan. She is out, lives with her girlfriend.
I fully support your friend’s personal choice not to marry her girlfriend, as well as her right to believe that gay men and lesbians should choose not to marry.
If your friend wants to run for office and vote to legally restrict people who are not her from marrying partners of the same sex, then I have just as much of a problem with her as I do with a Christian who opposes legal marriage equality.
Its not just about marriage though, every one seems to focus on that one but he’s also trying to get anti homosexual speech, acts of violence and discrimination/harrassment removed as being hate crimes and to repeal DADT. Hes trying to affect the civil rights of people.
“I guess if they agree with you, you would never consider outing. I have a lesbian friend who does not believe in gay marriage, she’s not a Christian, she is a pagan. She is out, lives with her girlfriend. ”
You’re making a completely inaccurate comparison, end of story.
The political beliefs or sexual orientation of private citizens are not up for public consumption.
If you think that private citizens and politicians are held to the same level of scrutiny, then why aren’t you demanding that the cashier at the grocery store provide you with a valid birth certificate? Why don’t you ask the bartender if you can see his tax returns?
It’s simply not the same thing-private citizens don’t sign up to be criticized. Running for a public office means that your private life will be dissected. With a political position comes power, the ability to affect change, prestige, a good paycheck and great benefits, and notoriety. The trade-off is loss of privacy. This should not be news to anyone.
Does your friend believe in marriage at all? I have a couple of friends, lesbian, also out, who don’t believe in gay marriage because they don’t believe in marriage. It’s not a sexual orientation issue for them, it’s a personal belief issue.
But either someone “don’t believe in marriage”, everyone should be allow to have the choice to marry if they want. Gee, if someone doesn’t want to marry, good for them, no one force them.
I understand, and agree with your point, but they way I’m parsing my question I’m leaving that out of the mix, it’s strictly ‘a not believing in marriage’ question, not anything else.
kpist, this is not a question about if he believed in marriage or not, Schock voting record is a proof of more dangerous issues. He voted in favor of the discrimination against LGBT community -Don’t ask don’t tell, legal protections-. When you have teenagers commiting suicides for being gay and being raped, beaten and murdered, Schock prefered to be accomplice of these actions.
As someone who has a teenager that came out to me recently, all I can say is that regardless of how this man may come face to face with his sexual identity, if he is indeed a gay man, he will live a more satisfying life if he is open and honest. If his story of coming to terms involves a messing outing, than there is not much he can do about that now.
I have this premonition that once the smoke clears, and he has dealt with his situation, if he is gay, he will lose those that were never going to bring value to his life and gain so many more that are willing to embrace and support him. If his life is to be in politics, then there are many ways that he can continue and prosper, if he can build a following based on being true to himself. I don’t think he has done anything irredeemable, but if he continues to live a double life, that brings more and more scrutiny and more stress, then he is doomed. His career and his life will be that much more difficult to salvage. No one will believe in someone who doesn’t have the power or will to believe in themselves.
I am just grateful my beloved child trusted her parents enough to open up and share what had been tormenting her for some time. I only want her happiness, and know that she is that much more likely to live a happy life knowing she is loved for who she is, every ounce of her. I will be her staunchest and most ferocious supporter as long as I live. She is extremely gifted, whip smart, so mature, someone to truly admire.
I can only hope that Schock realizes he has a future, one much brighter and promising, if he is open and honest about who is he is. Sexuality is so fundamental, so tied to esteem and well-being, no one benefits from hiding and feeling shame about who they are attracted to, who they love. There is time.
And by the way, the boy is gay. I almost spit out my coffee when I scrolled down and saw those pictures. And indeed he could be a much admired public figure, so much more than he ever could as an anonymous Republican, if he lets that fabulousness shine!
If only everyone had parents as loving as you.
Yes.
Your child has wonderful parents.
Great comment from a loving parent.
Thank you for sharing this.
People should come out when they want to come out. However, this man is trying to pass anti-gay legislation, plus he’s a politician. When you’re a politician your privacy is no longer an option. It’s maybe not the right thing but its reality. Here’s to him coming out freely if he is gay and not caring about what other people think. In this country people actually value honesty over your decision in sex partners. Just admit it and it becomes less of a scandal. Raw honesty, wins favor of liberals and conservatives.
I can’t for the life of me understand how a gay guy could be a republican in the first place, especially actively campaign against his own rights. It just boggles the mind. And as for the outing, if a politician is advocating for a position but they are doing and living the opposite of the public position they are taking, then its fair game when the hypocrisy comes out. Its no longer just personal business when it affects other people too.
His voting record is key here. He votes vehemently, violently, selfishly against gay interests, yet wants to secretly live a gay life.
He even wants to dress pretty gay and act pretty gay, but lie about BEING gay.
This is hypocrisy on several levels.
His JOB is to vote on and create laws that represent his constituents — and to have integrity.
Didn’t read all comments so idk if this has been asked already but… What’s the big deal about “outing” someone? If gay men and women want equal rights and tolerance why such a big show of “coming out”? Straight people don’t have an I’m straight announcement.
Delia,
Coming out is an act of courage and honor because gay people lose all the straight privilege they get for ‘passing’. It’s a pretty ‘big deal’ to be be beaten, murdered, or discriminated against when other people find out you’re gay. Straight people don’t need to “come out” because they’ve never been in a closet.
Here are just some examples of your Straight Privilege on a daily basis:
• I can be pretty sure that my roommate, hallmates, and classmates, will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
• If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.
• When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
• I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
• I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE fag tag or smear the queer).
• I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.
• I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
• I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
• I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.
• People don’t ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.
• People don’t ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.
• I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family. It’s assumed.
• My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.
• People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.
• I don’t have to defend my heterosexuality.
• I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.
• I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.
• I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.
• Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.
• I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
• My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.
• I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
• I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.
• If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.
• Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.
• I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in the Earlham curriculum, faculty, and administration.
• I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
• I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.
• I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
• I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
• I can go for months without being called straight.
• I’m not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
• My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
• In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, any references to sexuality meaning heterosexual sex or family as meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.
• People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.
• I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in the cafeteria without being watched and stared at.
• Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.
• People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE “straight as an arrow”, “standing up straight” or “straightened out”) instead of demeaning terms (IE “ewww, that’s gay” or being “queer”).
• I am not asked to think about why I am straight.
• I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.
Now you don’t have to bother reading any further than this. There, fixed it for you.
I love you for this comment.
(all your comments, really, but this one is GOLD.)
+1000
@Sloane Wyatt–are you a trained social worker, psychologist, activist, doctor, or anthropologist? I ask because I’ve been following Celebitchy for a while and your comments are different from the norm.
Lots of definitions, citations, and outright opinions stated as fact. No snark or offense intended in this question, genuinely curious.
Ps–I appreciate someone who backs opinion with examples, whether flawed to me or not.
Boy, Aaron is not helping his cause with those outfits is he.
On the other subject, I may not be a politician but I am a voter. If it is a vote for a stop sign, I will get off my big deriere and vote on it. I am fortunate to have the right to support LGBT and the right to vote as I see fit. Just as these politician, how stupid we feel they are are getting voted to represent the people, have the right to do so.
As far as outing him, no. Aaron is going to slip up and it will become news. Journalism will discuss him as a person and his stance on subjects. Then is when it should be a focus.
Coming out is a personal choice. There is no justification for violating someone’s privacy, no matter how much of a hypocrite that person may be. Outing someone is selfish, regardless of the rationalization.
I had a friend named Jeff in college who was rumored to be gay. Similiar rumors swirled around him and the campus gay community was eager to out him, particularly since his father was a deacon in the church. In fact, their primary reason for wanting to out Jeff was to embarrass his father, who they loathed because of his anti-gay views. Well, they did out him, the father was embarrassed and Jeff committed suicide.
A couple of things. I’m sorry about your friend. Your friend was a private person who wasn’t voting and advocating for lesser rights of people in his own demographic. If his father wasn’t ashamed or embarrassed by his son being gay, the son likely wouldn’t have been closeted in the first place. When people are forced to believe that they are lesser humans for being something or someone out of their control, without support and love, they are going to suffer depression. It wasn’t right in any way for people to punish the son for the sins of the father, so to speak. Has the father come to terms and accepted his son for who he was following the tragedy?
I will say only this: it should never be assumed that just because one is gay, one is comfortable with it. Heterosexuality is far more common than homosexuality and some people are simply not comfortable being different, no matter how much we tell them it’s okay to be different. Some people have religious views that are very deep and personal and they are simply unable to square what they believe with what they are and are in deep denial.
This was the case with my friend Jeff. He was not comfortable in his own skin. The problem with outing him wasn’t that he was rejected by his father (he wasn’t) or that his friends at school ridiculed him (they didn’t). The problem with outing him is that it forced him to deal with something he simply wasn’t ready to deal with and it proved too much for him.
Who knows if Schock is gay or not. Certainly, the jackass who wants to out him has a political agenda and is willing to destroy a man’s life to get his way. Screw him. It will make no difference…Schock would just be replaced by someone else who will vote the same way. Nothing gained, but possibly a life lost.
And if he isn’t gay? The this guy is making assumptions about Schock based on stereotypes, which makes no better than the people he criticizes.
I appreciate that you responded, but the answer doesn’t entirely compute. If people wanted to embarrass the father, how would outing the son accomplish this feat, if everything was copacetic for the father with the son being gay, or homosexuality, in general? Also, was his religion somehow different than the father’s? If not, it sounds like whatever the father was preaching somehow made the son feel guilty or ashamed about who he genuinely was or was thought to be with those “very deep religious beliefs” that he held. The issue is way more complicated than the outing, although I believe it wasn’t their place to do so. There was a foundation of disgust built around gayness, in the first place, and the father was probably the engineer of that structure.
I hope this isn’t a double post . . .
That must have been awful for everyone, LaurieH, not the least of which is your friend’s trauma at being involuntarily outed. Would anyone wish this on anyone else? I hope not, and it’s why I don’t think Aaron Schock should be outed either. Policies and minds can be changed. Suicide can’t.
Yeah. No matter what they all (“good people”) will say about “but you don’t understand. He voted against gays. He deserves it. He was not private person. Let’s burn him on fire” – it all comes to revenge and bullying. You can’t say that you support all gays and then be happy when one gay’s life and career will be destroyed just because you don’t share his views on certain things. You just can’t.
They bullied him because he was gay, they used it against him and they outed to shame him and destroy him. How on earth any good person can support that? This is crazy.
Gay card was publicly used to destroy politicians career because he was voting against gays. And you are all happy about it and praising it. What next? Some straight anti-gay man would be beaten up to death for being anti-gay. And “good people” will be like: “Well, I usually don’t support murder and beating but this man totally deserved it. He was anti-gay and he was beaten for it and his murderers should be totally freed”.
“They” is actually one guy who brought this story up. If there wasn’t a need for more recognition about how gays are treated differently, why would being gay destroy his career? Who said that they wanted this guy to get beat up, or for him to kill himself?
I can’t get on board with most of this guy’s argument….especially the comparison to discussing someone’s sexuality being equal to discussing their physical traits….historically, having blue eyes has not led many people to being the victim of violent hate crimes….The line of reasoning is weak at best.
I am really an conflicted about him being outed like that.
On one hand, he chose to be a public figure. Doing magazine covers and all and on top of that he has voted over and over again against gay rights. It really is no ones business what people do in their private life and he of all people (after seeing his outfits) should know better.
On the second hand, I feel bad for him, if he really is gay. No one should have to come out unless they are ready. And really why should he (as a person)?
Hilarious. Specially if he is not gay and just likes to dress that way. Or play with dolls or something. But is not actually sleeping with men. I mean we all “know’ that Hayden Christensen or Zac Efron or Will Smith or so many other celebrities are rumored to be gay. But we don’t actually know it. It may not be true. No matter how many years those rumors fly. People thought David Beckham was gay too at the beginning. Because of the way he dressed and his manners.
That “journalist” may think he knows about this guy. And he publicly outed that politician to be gay, knowing it may destroy his career. Because…. well here we are, reading article on Celebitchy will full name check of this politician. And so many other news sites publicly called him gay. And they still went with their “blind item outing”. Because publicly that politician is anti-gay.
So basically what happened – this politician was anti-gay. So they (every single media that outed him) USED GAY CARD TO DESTROY HIS POLITICAL CAREER. Congratulations. This is where it all come to. All that public bullying of every person that is not supporting gays. Now gay cards are used to destroy political careers. And you are so proud of yourself. You are all like: “Take that monster. That’s for not supporting gays”.
But what if that gay really is gay. That’s even 10 times worse. He was hiding it, did not want to come out because it would destroy his career. So people who support gays just outed him… to destroy him. Gays destroy gays now? Is this where it came now? This situations is soooo truly ridiculous 🙂 I mean – if he is gay then all gay supporters should support him, right? That’s the whole point. But they just destroyed his career and danced on his ash…. So weird.
There is so much wrong with your comment that I don’t even know where to start.
I think you need to remove the political aspect out of it –forget “gay rights” and start viewing the issue as “HUMAN rights”.
“I mean – if he is gay then all gay supporters should support him, right? That’s the whole point.”
Since when? LGBT people are PEOPLE first, with different and varying political and social opinions, their sexuality is simply one small aspect of who they are–just like heterosexuals.
The only part of your comment that I agree with is the idea that we don’t know FOR SURE if Schock is gay and we’re all discussing it like it’s truth. Not very fair, but then again, the world of politics is not known as a fair one. It’s one that will chew you up and spit you out, much like the Hollywood Machine in that regard.
Politically speaking, it’s a rough world, not for the private and not for the weak.
I hate politicians too. I don’t know this guy. And don’t care. But I think it was extremely cruel to out him like that. There he was, doing his thing and now every media in country publicly declared him gay. Now he has to come to work and see how people will hide their eyes, laugh at him, how there will always be elephant in the room now when he will have meetings, not to mention press. And no one even knows if this is true. Well everyone will assume now that it is.
I think there was similar situation with some baseball player few days ago. When media declared him gay. And now he has to come to training, match, showers in the dressing room and see how other men in the teams will laugh behind his back, made jokes, may say things to his face etc.
Once thing if those are rumors, Other thing to out people like that. I feel like it’s that turning point when LGBT supporters will DEMAND every celebrity to come out and will shame them for not doing it. Like they are betraying LGBT community or something. And if they will not – then media will out them themselves. It’s one thing when there were official law suits against John Travolta. It’s another when there were never any profs that Will Smith is gay. Yet it’s often implied in articles. Same with Tom Cruise. I mean it’s all fun to laugh at how crazy he is. But were there any proofs at all, ever that he was gay? We all kow it because media tells us about this for years but was it proved ever? Like ex-lovers stories (the ones you could trust) or videos.
Well it was truth about Ricky Martin. Everyone said it for years and it was truth. And about Matt Bomer. And some other. But I really wonder if Hayden Christensen, Zac Efron, Harry Styles or Will Smith are not gays but people always “out” them in comments or articles. Everyone tried to make Bieber gay at first but then he was sleeping around and those rumors just died.
Do you honestly believe that there weren’t already whispers about him being gay?
Do you think that the guy who wrote the Facebook post just pulled someone’s name out of a hat? I’m not saying he *is* gay, but there had to have been some suspicions prior.
@St.: “I think there was similar situation with some baseball player few days ago. When media declared him gay. And now he has to come to training, match, showers in the dressing room and see how other men in the teams will laugh behind his back, made jokes, may say things to his face etc. ”
Aaron Rodgers, quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. And a lot of that stuff that you mentioned happens during rookie hazing and training anyway. Of course, for Aaron, the timing was pretty bad:
“You know when an athlete is never ready to come out? Before his first playoff game. That’s when these gossip-mongers decided to attempt to “out” Aaron Rodgers. As he readied for Week 17, a win-and-you’re-in scenario against the Chicago Bears, the Packers quarterback had to weather a firestorm of accusations and speculation about his personal life. He was recovering from a collar-bone fracture, hadn’t started a game in almost two months, was playing the team that sent him to the sidelines – and now he had to think about his personal life being exposed at the worst possible time.
I don’t know if Aaron Rodgers is gay. If he isn’t, the rumors are nothing more than a mosquito that keeps buzzing around his ear. But if he is gay – if the speculation is actually true – then it’s a distraction of existential proportions. If Rodgers is closeted, and the secret he’s held all of his life has suddenly been plastered across the Internet against his wishes, when he’s not ready, before the biggest game of the year and one of the biggest games of his career – who the hell does that help?”
http://www.outsports.com/2014/1/3/5269888/aaron-rodgers-gay
I felt for Rodgers. I don’t for Schock.
“You really have to stretch the truth to portray the deputy whip of the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives as some kind of defenseless victim. One hopes that there’s a slight difference in the emotional maturity and vulnerability of a closeted gay 15 year old living in Alabama and a 32 year old sitting member of Congress. One expects the congressman to have thicker skin, especially when that member of Congress has chosen to live in the public eye with a zero percent voting record on gay civil rights issues.
But even if one were to buy the strained comparison between mocking the sexual orientation of a 15 year old child and exposing the hypocrisy of a 32 year old politician, let’s consider the relative culpability of the two. A 15 year old has no choice in attending high school, and shouldn’t be put in a position of fearing such attendance as, among other reasons, it’s considered a societal good that children be educated. We also don’t tend to endorse the notion that children should be beaten up, either mentally or physically. Children are considered our most vulnerable citizens, and they need and deserve our protection.
As for members of Congress? Not so much.”
http://americablog.com/2014/01/aaron-schock-victim.html
@OriginalKitten—thank you for pointing out that not all who fall under the political construct of LGBT think, behave, or vote the same way.
This idea annoys me deeply, ignores individualism, and is similar to the idea that all women want babies/must identify as feminist/should break balls/ should stay barefoot and pregnant/should be democrats/should be republicans, oh the list goes on and on.
Gays destroy gay who destroys them! I don’t see the problem!
Plus, his career has been destroyed only because he is a Conservative Republican. If he were a Democrat, he’d probably be fine!
I don’t think it would have made a difference what party he was affiliated with if he was agreeing with and supporting anti-gay legislation, which might be rare for a Democrat, but not completely out of the question in more conservative states.
P.S. That Itay Hod has no right to call himself journalist. I reread it once again. I mean – he is so angry that society does not allow him to out this politician publicly when he knows that this guy is gay. For sure, like ya’ll. How he knows it? Well his friend told him that he caught him in the shower… I mean, I just can’t. He didn’t even witnessed it himself. His friend might made it up for joke, might found out about this from his other friend and say that it was him who saw… Fact is – this Itay guy has no proof, only rumors. And he is angry that society is not allowing him to say those rumors as fact.
It’s like if Celebitchy, Radar or CNN would be offended that no one allows them to publicly declare that Zac Efron is gay in every article they wrote about him. And call him gay every time. Because they 100% know it’s true because they know a friend that caught him in the shower with another man…
I just can’t with that Itay Hod guy. So disgusting. YOU DID NOT EVEN WITNESSED IT YOURSELF.
Yes, I take issue with the manner in which it was handled, insinuated, rather than offering up proof or an actual witness. That’s not journalism. But has any mainstream media run with the story? If not, he may never answer to that question and his career will go on in the way it did before, with only suspicions, as I assume people already had in the first place. Unless, for whatever reason, he decides to respond.
Once I bought a friend of mine to church and a member started talking to us like we were a couple and I was so insulted that I went off on that b!tch…then she tried to act like she wasn’t accusing me of being a lesbian. I was so pissed off. All I did was have a friend visit my church with me and for that it was assumed I was a lesbian. I was insulted even more when the woman who approached us tried to act like she didn’t mean it—-acted like I misunderstood her …
so no I don’t think it is ok to out somebody because you could be wrong. I do not want that label on me especially when I did nothing to deserve it.
Why was it such an insult?
Oh you mean she should have proudly say that she is lesbian because otherwise it means she totally hates lesbians? That’s the vibe that is going on lately. Actors can’t even deny gay rumors anymore. Because people would be like: “Why do you have to publicly say that you are not gay? Are you ashamed to be gay? Do you hate gays? You totally are”. So now actors have to jokingly give 5 minutes speech how they adore gays and would be so proud to be ones but unfortunately they are not….
And that’s how you are with your aggressive: “Why was it such an insult?” Now Sunny must write long comment about how much she adores all lesbians but unfortunately she is not one. But she would be so proud to be one…
You know what? I remember how few years back all those suicides of gay students that were bullied were happening. And then on Glee there was this whole big story about Kurt and how he was bullied in school for being gay. And then they gave him Golden Globe for it. And then that “gay was bullied” story ended and that actor was never nominated for any award.
And I was so surprised to find out that people are actually bullied in schools or colleges. Because I was watching american tv shows and movies where everyone adore gays. I was reading gossip sites and news sites and every one adores gays too. And every celebrity adores. And in comments everyone adores. And then I found out that in real life not everyone adores them and actually bully students.
People don’t like to be out or be labeled because in real world life if different then on comments on gossip or news sites. That’s why actors and athletes don’t want to come out. You could even see how celebrities will sing their endless love for LGBT but then accidentally they sleep their real feelings towards it. And this is probably how it happens everywhere – ordinary people will politely agree because of that aggressive campaign from media that shames everyone who does not support LGBT. So they don’t want to be labeled as monsters and politely agree. But then privately will think differently.
“And that’s how you are with your aggressive…”
Pardon? Asking a question is aggressive? Where do you come from? Clearly the commenter was bent out of shape over someone misinterpreting her relationship with a friend. If that had happened to me, I wouldn’t have lost my shit over it. I don’t comprehend why that should create such anger in her. I’m not gay, BTW. I don’t understand how so much anger and fury is generated by that.
“You know what? I remember how few years back all those suicides of gay students that were bullied were happening. And then on Glee there was this whole big story about Kurt and how he was bullied in school for being gay. And then they gave him Golden Globe for it. And then that “gay was bullied” story ended and that actor was never nominated for any award.”
This doesn’t make any sense.
My analysis was that some people hate gays, gays pushed back against people hating gays, but some people liked it better when they could express their hatred of gays outwardly in public, instead of hiding it because of the push-back, so it’s preferable that people stay in the closet since the haters lost their rights to hate publicly or something like that.
‘Accusing’ you of being a *gasp* ‘lesbian,’ that ‘label,’ did nothing to ‘deserve’ it? You speak as if she assumed you were a murderer.
The woman was wrong to assume anything about you because we should never assume things about other people’s private lives, but that’s it. My goodness you seem angry, she thought you were a lesbian so you told her off, and here refer to her as ‘that b*tch’? Okay.
This kind of extreme negative thinking is exactly why people who are gay are so afraid to be open about it.
The white pants outfit looks just like something Anne Hathaway’s husband would wear.
We live in a world where kids who are gay have committed suicide, because they’ve been told something is wrong with them. Bottom line. Tis man needs to be stopped. Period.
I am far more concerned about exposing his hypocrisy than sexual preference. Private citizens should not be outed, but the man in question is a public figure and private behavior is fair game. I guess the hole in my argument would be associated with indicting someone based on innuendo. This concerns me greatly. The public needs far more proof before rendering a hypocrisy verdict. What were the circumstances by which the journalist who outed congressman Schock discovered him showering with another man. Showering is a relatively private activity and casual observers would NOT be privy to this. And if Schock was in fact in the closet, surely he would practice more discretion than to engage in such an act w/ others present. This story is so damning that I would prefer more irrefutable evidence before condemning Schock. For those screaming privacy, how is this any different than exposing extra-marital affairs of the rich and famous. There is precedent regarding exposing private lives of politicians from both parties, especially given that Schock’s voting record reflects a decidedly anti-gay agenda. One love.
Dolly Parton called. She wants her wardrobe back…
My gaydar is sooo broken (even my hubby mocks me) but that third picture fixed it!
All I really have to say is that his fabulous teal belt inspired a bunch of really great comments that gave me some good laughs this morning 🙂
I am late to this party, but, here’s my two cents.
Generally I think people’s privacy should be respected re: sexuality, because it’s not like straight people have to announce that they’re straight, too. I’ve known gay people who have never officially “come out”, they just live their lives and if you know them, it’s pretty obvious once you meet their partner or go out for a night on the town with them and see who they’re into, which is pretty much how it goes for the straights, too. But then, I’ve also known gay people who liked having the formal coming out moment, and saw it as a right of passage. I’m fine with both things; whatever floats your boat.
But a political figure is not Jerry in accounting or Sue at the bank. A political figure is a public figure, one who affects policy which impacts millions, if not hundreds of millions, of lives. If we can hound Barack Obama for his birth certificate, then yeah, we can hound this guy about his sexuality because his policies about that very same topic affect way more people than just him. I don’t see how pointing out this guy’s hypocrisy is any different than pointing out, say, Strom Thurmond’s (long-time senator who was incredibly racist and opposed the Civil Rights Act, repeatedly, all the while banging his family’s black servants).
If he were a drug addict, a sex addict, a gambler, who voted daily on issues that impacted our lives and who had access to national security information that if compromised would affect our safety would we be questioning his right to privacy? Blackmail is an effective weapon.
I do not care about his damaged psyche or his wardrobe. Once you take the oath of office and then proceed to use that office to deny the people you supposedly represent the same rights you enjoy, all bets are off.
If he is gay, the only reason I see him not being out is because he wants to continue to enjoy the privilege that comes with being a white, Christian, straight male in a position of power.
Therefore he can go fuck himself.
I know Aaron personally and he is not gay! Just because he likes to dress well and work out, Does not make him gay!
@Rachel S, I think I speak for almost EVERYONE here when I say…please do tell us more.
In Washington circles there has been much talk
A story was written about Aaron Schock
A staffer replied
That the author had lied;
“Aaron’s not gay, he just prefers cock”
It always amazes me how many closeted (gurl, please) gay men think no one can tell despite being so flamboyantly homosexual you’d have to be headless to NOT know. It’s hilarious. Anyway, I completely agree that if you’re a homophobic Republican who has repeatedly voted in a manner designed to deny an entire segment of American citizens their civil rights and you are secretly a member of said group, then you should totally be outed. In fact, it’s one of my favorite things (I totally didn’t do that on purpose, but you just KNOW Congressman Schock absolutely loves The Sound of Music).