Thsi week "Out" magazine asked the question when Anderson Cooper and Jodie Foster were "going to come out and play." Neither of them has ever denied their homosexuality and appears in public with their partner or special friend. Why was it necessary for them to be "outed"?http://girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2007/04/out-magazine-outs-jody-foster-and.html
2007-04-04 07:29:50 · 12 answers · asked by beckychr007 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Well, in my opinion, someone's orientation is a private matter. No one deserves to be "outed" in a public forum.
Having said that, the LGBT community cannot have too many positive role models. More prominent LGBT people - in every industry - need to make themselves known. This gives LGBT youth a chance to have hope.
I wish society weren't so bigoted, and these celebrities would feel more comfortable about being such role models. But I would never force someone into a role they do not choose.
2007-04-04 07:35:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Anderson Cooper & Jodie Foster have been "out" for years. And have spoken about it. Just not politically active. SO thats hardly being "outed".
Anderson's mother is Gloria Vanderbilt .. he doesn't talk about that much either. I don't think it is a secret though.
2007-04-04 14:35:44 · answer #2 · answered by Active Denial System™ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Frankly, so long as a person is not doing something hypocritical(IE Ted Haggard) it's no one else's business if they are or are not gay. The only time I agree with publicly outing someone is in the case of hypocrisy or when their hidden life presents a danger to the public.
Are they gay? Maybe so, but until they personally say they are and choose to discuss it, I will give them the privacy they deserve.
2007-04-04 14:49:10 · answer #3 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find it highly inappropriate. Everyone has a right to come to terms with their own being and their own sexuality and not be forced to, especially by other gays who usually have their own history of hiding and not wanting someone to do the same to them until they were ready to come to terms. They have never denied it or answered it, so maybe they don't want anyone in their damn business.
It is taking someone else's life out of their hands. What if their actions end up causing them physical harm or helps them lose their job? Will they take responsiblity for it then?
2007-04-04 17:19:30 · answer #4 · answered by JAdorE 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've heard rumors and speculation about both, but this crosses a line to me. I can see why it's valuable to out an enemy to gay people, like Ted Haggard. This doesn't do anything but stir up attention for no good reason.
2007-04-04 14:41:30 · answer #5 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it was inappropriate...I think that even though they are public 'property' when they are performing...they have every right to their own private lives...I think 'outing' people is quite passe.
2007-04-04 14:36:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They don't respect the notion of privacy... and I wonder how many of them agonized over outing themselves
2007-04-04 14:34:48 · answer #7 · answered by Lost in Merryland 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If they don't want to come out, that's their business.
2007-04-04 18:53:57 · answer #8 · answered by S.F. Girl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is never right to interfere in people's private lives.
.
2007-04-04 14:34:32 · answer #9 · answered by abetterfate 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they didn't jodie foster for sure, has long said she is gay, and the other one, i don't even know who he is...........
2007-04-04 14:43:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋