Congressman Aaron Schock outed?

[Brittain33]

Being a Republican congressman in good standing means having a solid anti-gay voting record, 0% from HRC, etc. Being an anti-gay Republican congressman means doing all that and being loud and public about it.

[Gustaf]

While I won't say it's wrong to out him and while I also understand how it can feel for some of our gay members reacting to this, I think one should be cautious in judging an individual in this type of situation. I'm going to guess that he comes out of a conservative environment in which he battled with this issue for a large portion of his life. I can't myself imagine quite how bad that must be so I don't want to judge that too harshly.

[afleitch]

While I won't say it's wrong to out him and while I also understand how it can feel for some of our gay members reacting to this, I think one should be cautious in judging an individual in this type of situation. I'm going to guess that he comes out of a conservative environment in which he battled with this issue for a large portion of his life. I can't myself imagine quite how bad that must be so I don't want to judge that too harshly.

If the rumours are correct (and it's still just an if) he's clearly not 'struggling' with it; he's hitting the town, hitting the clubs, hooking up with guys and basically living an 'out' life, except he has a political entourage who cover it all up for him. Then in congress he votes against every piece of LGBT friendly legislation. If he did everything but vote the way he did no one would really care. It's the fact he votes against protections despite seeking protection himself that would, if true, make him a reprehensible human being.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I still don't think it's hypocritical for him to like getting some action with other men, and to disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation philosophically. He almost certainly doesn't disagree with it and is pandering, I get that, but the only thing that would make him a hypocrite in my book is if he wanted homosexuality criminalized. As long as he's not in a homosexual marriage, I don't see him opposing it as necessarily hypocritical.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I still don't think it's hypocritical for him to like getting some action with other men, and to disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation philosophically. He almost certainly doesn't disagree with it and is pandering, I get that, but the only thing that would make him a hypocrite in my book is if he wanted homosexuality criminalized. As long as he's not in a homosexual marriage, I don't see him opposing it as necessarily hypocritical.

Yeah cuz that's what sexuality is:  "Getting some action with other men" but to otherwise disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation 'philosophically'.

Please.

Don't trivialize my sexuality with your awful (and misguided) moderate heroism.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I still don't think it's hypocritical for him to like getting some action with other men, and to disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation philosophically. He almost certainly doesn't disagree with it and is pandering, I get that, but the only thing that would make him a hypocrite in my book is if he wanted homosexuality criminalized. As long as he's not in a homosexual marriage, I don't see him opposing it as necessarily hypocritical.

Yeah cuz that's what sexuality is:  "Getting some action with other men" but to otherwise disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation 'philosophically'.

Please.

Don't trivialize my sexuality with your awful (and misguided) moderate heroism.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything, I was talking about his personal life, not all homosexuals. Obviously being gay is a lot more than just sex, but It seems to be the extent of it for him, since he apparently isn't engaging himself in an actual relationship.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I still don't think it's hypocritical for him to like getting some action with other men, and to disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation philosophically. He almost certainly doesn't disagree with it and is pandering, I get that, but the only thing that would make him a hypocrite in my book is if he wanted homosexuality criminalized. As long as he's not in a homosexual marriage, I don't see him opposing it as necessarily hypocritical.

Yeah cuz that's what sexuality is:  "Getting some action with other men" but to otherwise disagree with gay marriage or hate crime legislation 'philosophically'.

Please.

Don't trivialize my sexuality with your awful (and misguided) moderate heroism.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything, I was talking about his personal life, not all homosexuals. Obviously being gay is a lot more than just sex, but It seems to be the extent of it for him, since he apparently isn't engaging himself in an actual relationship.

You literally don't know that.

He's either gay or he's not.  If he's gay, then he's gay like all other gays.  Same rules apply.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If the rumours are correct (and it's still just an if) he's clearly not 'struggling' with it; he's hitting the town, hitting the clubs, hooking up with guys and basically living an 'out' life, except he has a political entourage who cover it all up for him. Then in congress he votes against every piece of LGBT friendly legislation.

Yes, this...  um... changes the morality of the situation considerably.

[Alcon]

I don't understand why a conservative Republican politician would "choose to be gay," except in the sense he chose it because he prefers to sleep with men, which is a phenomenon I personally call "already being gay."  That's just me.

[Lurker]

While I won't say it's wrong to out him and while I also understand how it can feel for some of our gay members reacting to this, I think one should be cautious in judging an individual in this type of situation. I'm going to guess that he comes out of a conservative environment in which he battled with this issue for a large portion of his life. I can't myself imagine quite how bad that must be so I don't want to judge that too harshly.

If the rumours are correct (and it's still just an if) he's clearly not 'struggling' with it; he's hitting the town, hitting the clubs, hooking up with guys and basically living an 'out' life, except he has a political entourage who cover it all up for him. Then in congress he votes against every piece of LGBT friendly legislation. If he did everything but vote the way he did no one would really care. It's the fact he votes against protections despite seeking protection himself that would, if true, make him a reprehensible human being.

Would he really manage to cover that up for so long (and be stupid enough to attempt to do so)? Surely someone would recognize the congressman at all the gay clubs he was visiting - seems like a massive risk to take for an ambitious GOP politician.

[Maxwell]

I hope he changes his tune somewhat since being outed. Otherwise, I hope he loses, whether its a primary challenge in the future, or a good general election opponent.

[TTS1996]

If the rumours are correct (and it's still just an if) he's clearly not 'struggling' with it; he's hitting the town, hitting the clubs, hooking up with guys and basically living an 'out' life, except he has a political entourage who cover it all up for him.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting the "if" is a big thing. What if he's not gay, doesn't that change everything? There seems to be no proof for it beyond what some malicious types say on Twitter. And as a gay man I get fed up that some people think that because he was photographed wearing "that" check shirt and bright blue belt, that means he might be gay. Sexuality isn't defined by your wardrobe.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If he's not actually gay then he's just your run of the mill anti-gay Republican with questionable fashion sense. Not like it suddenly makes him a great person and we're all meanie heads for criticizing him. He's either a bigot or a hypocritical coward.

[Holmes]

If he's ever outed, he'll just give this lame excuse about how his personal and professional life should be separate - and in most cases they should be, but not in a case like this. "Sure, I bang guys in the shower and hit every gay bar that I can, but that's my personal life, I just vote against gay rights at every opportunity because that's my professional career. There's a big difference."

[muon2]

If he's ever outed, he'll just give this lame excuse about how his personal and professional life should be separate - and in most cases they should be, but not in a case like this. "Sure, I bang guys in the shower and hit every gay bar that I can, but that's my personal life, I just vote against gay rights at every opportunity because that's my professional career. There's a big difference."

Suppose a politician enjoys gambling, goes to casinos and horse tracks and views gambling as a legitimate business, but that politician represents an area that is strongly opposed to gambling. Would it be hypocritical for that politician to vote against all pro-gambling bills? Who does the politician represent when they vote - the voters in the politician's district or the politician's personal beliefs?

[DINGO Joe]

If he's ever outed, he'll just give this lame excuse about how his personal and professional life should be separate - and in most cases they should be, but not in a case like this. "Sure, I bang guys in the shower and hit every gay bar that I can, but that's my personal life, I just vote against gay rights at every opportunity because that's my professional career. There's a big difference."

Suppose a politician enjoys gambling, goes to casinos and horse tracks and views gambling as a legitimate business, but that politician represents an area that is strongly opposed to gambling. Would it be hypocritical for that politician to vote against all pro-gambling bills? Who does the politician represent when they vote - the voters in the politician's district or the politician's personal beliefs?

Do his constituents know he gambles?  They may view that as a moral defect, or makes the representative more prone to bribing or being bought by special interests.  Supposes a Congressman opposes abortion and wants it outlawed, but he's buying abortions for every two-bit hussy he's knocked up?  Should his constituents know about that?  Let's say there is a certain segment of Schock's constituency that believe the gays are evil and are going to hell, should they get to know that they are voting for satan's spawn?

[ilikeverin]

If he's ever outed, he'll just give this lame excuse about how his personal and professional life should be separate - and in most cases they should be, but not in a case like this. "Sure, I bang guys in the shower and hit every gay bar that I can, but that's my personal life, I just vote against gay rights at every opportunity because that's my professional career. There's a big difference."

Suppose a politician enjoys gambling, goes to casinos and horse tracks and views gambling as a legitimate business, but that politician represents an area that is strongly opposed to gambling. Would it be hypocritical for that politician to vote against all pro-gambling bills? Who does the politician represent when they vote - the voters in the politician's district or the politician's personal beliefs?

I've had a couple of arguments with my boyfriend about that.  My answer is the politician's own beliefs, of course.  That's why we're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy; elected officials should be responsive to their constituents insofar as they can, but they have no duty to directly parrot their district.  It is simply impossible to believe that voters have enough information about the issues, and that politicians have enough information about their own voters' preferences, to make anything along those lines practical or beneficial.  If the hypothetical politician in your example truly believes that gambling is a legitimate business, they should have no qualms about supporting it wholeheartedly, as, contrary to their voter's supposedly universally expressed preferences, they should feel assured that having gambling is truly better for their constituents than not having gambling.  If their constituents are annoyed enough by that, they can just vote them out in the next election.

Anyway, re: thread, I find the chances of some sort of staffing cabal being deployed to hide every trace of Schock's gay activities to be rather low.  That's not to say that these gay rumors are necessarily false, nor that this guy's allegations are untrue, but it's kind of unlikely that he has some sort of cleanup crew that bribes entire gay bars into forgetting about his existence.  I mean, what gay dude wouldn't brag about having Aaron Schock as a lay?

[Person Man]

Would this be another high-profile case where people who devote a great amount of energy to persecute homosexuals are only hiding their own homosexuality.

This guy should be outed. This is an issue of honesty. Is it not?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You think the conclusion someone has come to from their own "lived-in" experience is "disgusting?" Those are strong words...

If they "chose" their sexuality, then I question their ability to have a sexuality at all.  That just screams "sociopath"...

Sociopaths often don't have a preference for either, thus making a "choice" much easier.  Choosing to be gay in such situations may be beneficial for whatever purposes they're working towards.

And I don't sympathize with sociopaths.

So again... yeah, it is disgusting.  If a "gay" guy says he "chose" it, cut that guy out of your life.  He's probably trying to take advantage of you or manipulate you somehow... as sociopaths are wont to do.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I have immense respect for you on this forum, but to assume that your experience is the only right way to be gay, to me, really trivializes people who struggle with labelling their sexuality. I don't know what I was born liking, what I learned to like, what my upbringing encouraged me to like, or what my environment conditioned me to like. I do know that I believe people deserve dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law no matter who they are or who they choose to be. To call someone a sociopath for not conforming to your conception of "the gay experience" is wholly unfair and mean-spirited.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I was always under the impression that "choose-your-sexuality" folks are actually bisexual or pansexual, which I know doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Sexuality is a rather fluid concept and poorly discriminates into discrete categories, but everyone I've met, even bisexuals, have their preference.  That's far from saying a "choice" exists, but supposedly everyone has some bisexual tendencies yet tends to be more attracted to a certain gender.  I'm not a scientist, though.

But even if it was a choice, that's not a good reason to oppose gay marriage.  Society hasn't run amok in the states that legalized it, so there's no practical reason to be against it.

[Yank2133]

Yeah, it is kinda of hard to feel bad for this guy.

[Sol]

It's quite probable that Homosexuality and Bisexuality comes from a multitude of sources. The sense I get (from reading occasional articles on the subject- I could be wrong) is that some of it is genetic, some of it is natal, and some of it may be due to environmental factors. That isn't to say that these orientations are necessarily a choice per se- but they may rely on a variety of factors, some of which may kick in past birth. Probably most gays were attracted to the same sex from the very beginning- that's certainly been my personal experience.

In any case, I think that the whole "born this way" argument is an effective rhetorical strategy, but we shouldn't internalize it and criticize people whose experience doesn't conform to it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You think the conclusion someone has come to from their own "lived-in" experience is "disgusting?" Those are strong words...

If they "chose" their sexuality, then I question their ability to have a sexuality at all.  That just screams "sociopath"...

Sociopaths often don't have a preference for either, thus making a "choice" much easier.  Choosing to be gay in such situations may be beneficial for whatever purposes they're working towards.

And I don't sympathize with sociopaths.

So again... yeah, it is disgusting.  If a "gay" guy says he "chose" it, cut that guy out of your life.  He's probably trying to take advantage of you or manipulate you somehow... as sociopaths are wont to do.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I have immense respect for you on this forum, but to assume that your experience is the only right way to be gay, to me, really trivializes people who struggle with labelling their sexuality. I don't know what I was born liking, what I learned to like, what my upbringing encouraged me to like, or what my environment conditioned me to like. I do know that I believe people deserve dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law no matter who they are or who they choose to be. To call someone a sociopath for not conforming to your conception of "the gay experience" is wholly unfair and mean-spirited.

What you suggest is not a choice.  If someone has trouble with their sexuality, that's precisely what it is:  trouble identifying and/or accepting their sexuality.

Sexuality isn't a choice.  Period.  It is innate.  If someone is bisexual but chooses only to be romantically/sexually involved with males or females, they are still bisexual.

People who don't have a sexuality but actively choose one or choose to be romantically/sexually involved with one gender or the other... is a bad sign.  Sociopaths, again, often don't have a preference because they lack the ability to have feelings of love, empathy, and compassion for others (or they choose not to have those feelings for others.  Sociopathy is often about being able to turn those things off at will... and on as well.)

Many sociopaths will say they don't care what gender you are, as long as they can get what they want out of you.

That's the point I was making.

For people just struggling with their sexuality for various reasons, it's a completely different ballgame.  At the end of the day, these people are still something, they just may not have found out what that is yet.

[Хahar 🤔]

Sociopathy doesn't preclude sexual attraction to one gender or the other, naturally.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So this outing strategy that depends to a large extent on appealing to the revulsion of a portion of the population to homosexuality. . . what's the end game exactly?