If you know a celebrity is gay, is it ethical to "out" them? If they are a pastor, does it make a difference?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Please describe your moral reasoning.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

No. "Reporting" that people are gay for profit and/or sensationalism is wrong. Reporting that people are gay who are actively passing legislation or actively preaching hate towards gay people is perfectly acceptable.

For some reason this reminds me of a loose translation of something Confucius said, that after the avalanche has started, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.

Answer 2

If the pastor is having an affair (heterosexual, but adulterous) with a parishioner's wife, is it ethical to out him then? I see no difference between this scenario and a gay pastor and his or her paramour. The affair is a private matter, and to make it public could hurt many innocent people; the problem could be handled much more effectively without making it a media or gossip circus. Just so with the gay pastor; handle it according to church policies BEHIND the scenes. If the pastor is making overtures to those under his authority, then the problem becomes more immediate. But if there is no betrayal of the office and trust given to the pastor, then I see no reason to make such a fact public. Even if there is a betrayal, it should be handled effectively without the media circus, which tends to distort reality and create havoc in the name of sensation.

The celebrity's case is the same. Just because an actor or actress bares emotions and sometimes skin on the screen, this does not give us license to throw open the celebrity's private life. Anyone who knew such a thing would either be the receiver of attentions or a close friend or family member (or perhaps a spy). Excepting the spy, all the former do themselves as well as the celebrity a disservice if they make their private lives public.

The only time it would be ethical to out someone is if there is no other way to stop that person perpetrating illegal acts or endangering innocents (clear and present danger). The person doing the "outing" should pick who he or she tells with utmost care to avoid hurting more people than necessary. A gay pastor is not a clear and present danger by definition, as some tend to believe, just as not all snakes are poisonous.

Answer 3

I think the only way someone in a position to spread an opinion (the famous, a teacher, a pastor, etc.) should be outed is if they are openly spreading a message of hate. By hate I mean that they are going around and saying that God hates gay people because they are gay I do not mean that they speak from a religious stand point - saying that homosexuality is a sin (especially for the pastor). Everyone deserves a right to privacy and unless this person is doing something that could harm another person than their sexuality is exactly that - theirs.


*EDIT* A politician is suppose to represent the majority of the people in whatever district they represent - therefore technically there should be nothing wrong with them saying that something is wrong in a political battle unless their viewpoint contradicts that of whom they represent.


Layla - Most religious leaders do not claim to be sinless. As a matter of fact they openly claim that they are of a sinful nature. Since all sins are equal in God's eyes you cannot say that being a homosexual is reason not to be a religious leader. If they are a practicing homosexual this may be different. But still - there are religious leaders that are greedy, lustful, abusive, envious, prideful, etc. If you deny someone the right to hold an religious occupation based on their sexuality because it is considered wrong by the church, synagauge, etc. You need to deny all other sinners the right to be a religious leader too - that would mean that there would be no religious leaders.

Answer 4

If it's a pastor who is condemning gays in his sermons, it is ethical. The congregation should know they are putting money on a cheap hypocrite. Any other celebrity, no. I do not generally approve of "outing." It's just too personal. If someone wants to keep their private life private, why shouldn't they?

Besides, most celebrities who are outed are really bisexual, not exclusively gay. And some, I suspect, are really straight but the target of vengeance from a disappointed groupie. It's quite pitiful how a person is expected to give up their privacy if they become an actor or musician. Or politician.

Answer 5

It is not ethical to out someone simply for being gay. What people do in private is their own business.

However, I don't have any problem outing preachers and politicians to expose their hypocrisy, especially when they are lobbying, influencing or voting on legislation that affects the lives of others.

Answer 6

"Outing" is unethical, unless the person has denounced being gay. Privacy is one thing, hypocrisy is another. (Denying is simply avoiding the wishy-washy position of no comment, so denial without denouncing is not hypocrisy.)

If the person is in violation of the rules of the office held, then it is justified, if the purpose is to protect the office. If it is to support an agenda, then it is wrong. This is where the Aristotelian principle of double effect kicks in. You protect the office and support the agenda at a person's loss. Motive matters.

Answer 7

Yes, it's ethical, "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". Presenting a false image of being straight when gay is wrong and unethical, it's makes people think being gay is something to be ashamed of, and it is not.

Answer 8

technically speaking when it comes to a priest being homosequal it is contradicting because in all these religions homosequality is forbidden and if they are preaching to the church or what not these (homosexual) ministers Rabi's ext .. about the religion, how can they preach on a religion if they dont even believed it themselves?? its either 100% or nothing a priest is suppose to not onlly believe in what he is preaching but live it as well and if the minister turns gay or what not he needs to resign out of respect of the religion or hed be a biggit. its just makes sense. you have to walk the walk. thats not my opinion i have nothing against gays i dont pass judgment on any one but to hold a title like a minister you have to live it. just like how many people u know go to church and are like sactafied then they come home and drink alcohol?? they may feel that they are doing right but there not and we are not perfect but we have totry to do our best and when u believe in something you will follow it inside and out thats how we get rewarded too!
I dont make the rules i just try to follow them thats what we are here full find our faith that we believe in and follow it when u believe in something u wont have any doubts

Answer 9

I don't think it's ethical to "out" a person without their permission. People should decide on their own what details of their life are private and what are up for public consumption. To announce something about them that they don't want announced--for whatever reason--is to invade their privacy.

Answer 10

You should never "out" a person, there is a reason or possibly people, that this person feels they need to protect.

You have no idea about their personal life, and the turmoil that this "outing" may cause.

You could completely destroy this person, and their loved ones.

This is a personal decision that the person has to make, only he will know when the time is right, to let his family know.

How can you even ask such a thing?