Gay Outers: Hypocrisy or Human?

I know a cardiologist who smokes like a chimney. In a consultation with him, should you be unfortunate enough to have heart disease and need surgery, he will recommend, strongly, that you give up smoking. It's bad for your health. Is he a hypocrite?

There needs to be a better understanding of the word "hypocrite". Todays definition is "saying one thing and doing another", but that's not correct. That's a sinner. A sinner knows the ideal, believes the ideal and falls short. A hypocrite, knows the ideal, does NOT believe the ideal yet says he believes the ideal, and habitually ignores the ideal for some ulterior reason. This is a hypocrite:

a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

Larry Craig would be a hypocrite (as opposed to human and fallible) if he believed that being actively gay was Jim-dandy fine, but got married, had kids, became a Republican, and spoke out against it so he could have power. That would be hypocrisy. Calling out a man of ambiguous sexuality while believing that there is nothing wrong with said sexuality and believing that imposing morality on someone is wrong and then doing just that to achieve political ends rather than benefit gays (Craig fails to display the progressive gay "morality", i.e. being pro-gay marriage) would be hypocritical.

In the comment section over at Gay Patriot, Will from American Elephant says:

I still think Craig should just switch parties–hed go from being a hypocrite to being a victim faster than you can tap your toe.

Gay Patriot notes the Outers hypocrisy; they use the same strident religious zeal that they claim to hate about the religious right:

In yesterday’s Washington Post Marc Fisher wrote that such “work requires” the “outers” to “play God” (Via Michael Silence via Instapundit). As if they know better than the rest of us. An attitude not too different from that of religious zealots. Indeed, the very title of the column, focusing on the actions of blogger Michael Rogers, Who Among Us Would Cast the First Stone? This Guy suggests that Rogers has the same certainty of belief as do those judgmental voices on the religious right whom his allies on the left are ever eager to criticize.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The outers on the left do themselves no favors by outing people who prefer to remain closeted. It strikes honest people as unfair and ruthless. It is off-putting. It is especially off-putting when screwing in public bathroom stalls is defended when it's clearly illegal, while wrecking someone's personal life is fair game. Hello? Maybe gay activists need to be more diverse in their friendships. Would they like a niece or nephew walk in while a couple of men mate in a public bathroom? This base and degrading behavior angers people. There is no logical defense for the activity and yet, it gets defended.

There are gay people who believe that living the lifestyle violates their moral code. They are not hypocrites. They are human. If they believed being gay was fine, good even, professed it sinful and lived the lifestyle, they'd be hypocrites. Just like my cardiologist friend or Peta people who sneak leather shoes, or the devout vegetarian succumbing to a tempting hamburger, these people aren't hypocrites, they're human.

The label "hypocrite" is used to silence opposition. Unfortunately, it works.

Matt Sanchez has more thoughts.