Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Homosexuals, outing of
Section E. Social, moral and religious

If the media know that a public figure is gay but they have not come out of their own accord, should their privacy be respected or should they be ’outed’? Is there a duty to be out, or should people be able to hide their sexuality if they wish? This debate is not about a law, but rather about the principle.

Pros

[1] Prejudice against homosexuality is linked to the fact that gays are seen as a tiny minority in society. In fact, it is estimated that as many as 10 per cent of people are gay. If this were known by the general public, it would greatly reduce the existing prejudice and discriminatory behaviour. Therefore,’outing’, or the naming of gay individuals who are currently ’in the closet’, is in the long run a valuable weapon against bias. This is particularly true in the case of gay celebrities who can serve as role models.

[2] Many closet homosexuals are in fact hypocrites, maintaining heterosexual lifestyles and even campaigning against gay rights (two members of John Major’s Cabinet in the UK in the 1990s who were widely believed to be gay by the media, but never exposed, voted against an equal age of consent). It is doubly important that they be outed.

[3] It is true that many people do not know what is good for them. Because of the traditional prejudice against homosexuality, ’coming out’ can be a terrifying experience that gays resist through fear of rejection, condemning themselves to a lifetime of secrecy, unhappiness and lack of fulfilment. Society is more embracing than ever and coming out will usually improve one’s quality of life, with very little backlash. John Amaechi, the NBA basketball player waited until he retired to come out and later said that he had ’underestimated America’ as the response had been much better than he had feared. Outing can therefore be beneficial for individuals, even if they would not choose it at first.

Cons

[1] There are quite enough gay celebrities to fight the cause already — most of whom have come out voluntarily — and society is changing to embrace homosexuality even without widespread outing. Declaration of sexuality is one of the most important decisions in life and must be made by the individual concerned. Even if outing were to help the fight against discrimination, each individual case must be the choice of the person concerned, not anyone else’s.

[2] It is society’s fault, not that of politicians or bishops or sports stars, that people are forced to cloak themselves in heterosexuality for the sake of their careers. There are many constituencies where an openly gay political candidate would stand no chance of success. Until society accepts gay men and women in all walks of life, those with ambition are faced with a stark choice — admit their homosexuality and give up their chance of being a politician, a vicar, or so on, or pretend otherwise. This may be hypocritical, but we can understand why it is done.

[3] The consequences of outing can be terrible. Coming out frequently entails rejection by family and friends and the destruction of careers. It can lead to a complete change of lifestyle and requires careful and meditative preparation. To out someone who is not prepared can lead to nervous breakdowns or even suicide.

Many public figures have indeed given up their careers or killed themselves to avoid being outed.

Possible motions

This House would ’out’ gay celebrities.

This House would name them but not shame them.

This House believes that staying in is the new coming out.

Related topics

Gay marriage, legalising of

Homosexuals, ordination of

Privacy of public figures