Acknowledgment of the Gay or Lesbian Lives - Essay Example

Outing Outing is publicly acknowledging the sexual orientation of an individual regardless of whether the individual inquestion is willing to make this information known publicly (Mohr 11). This is regarding that most gays and lesbians wish to make their sexual identities as a secret. Thus, outing is capable of making the sexual orientation of an individual known publicly but not publicly acknowledged. However, outing is capable of disrupting the codes of silence that block the general public’s acknowledgment of the gay or lesbian lives. Many individuals have opposed outing including the gay press. Individuals have a right to determine their own sexualities and people argue that it is upon them to determine whether to reveal their sexual orientation to the public or not. Outing is capable of raising a number of norms that become difficult to entangle from each other. It invades the issue of secrecy and privacy of these individuals regarding their sexuality and the orientation of their sexualities. The more convincing argument is that outing is morally required since outing entails revealing the sexual orientation and not the sexual behaviors of these individuals. According to Morh, arguments against outing are confused and confounded especially the argument that indicates that outing violates the privacy rights. If the required weight is given to the dignity of an individual who is openly gay who outs others, then outing is justified in all matters of course. Outing is permissible and has an expected consequence of the living morally. However, outing could also lead to an individual being wrongly judged in the society since most society members do not accept homosexuality. Individuals argue that outing invades on the secrecy and the privacy of these individuals. However, this argument confuses the issue of privacy and secrecy. Privacy is the control over access that other individuals have over an individual. Secrecy, occurs when an individual intentionally conceals something often information. Thus, the control over access is the foundation of privacy while hiding is the foundation of secrecy. The author indicates that if privacy is used to infer to something in a more normative sense, then the application in turn invokes some of the required norms. Any act, possession or even relation that is private in a more normative sense invokes a right to it that bars the unwanted access to it by other people. On one hand, secrecy is one’s thoughts and the inner dialogue including secrecy safeguards the harsh judgments that such individuals can get from the public. However, the private ideas that one has could also be known by the public and might even be published despite an individual’s thinking of them as private. These are ideas that are known and acknowledged though the public can never intrude on them. It is important to note that any evil that may exist and survive in a just society happens due to the issue of secrecy. This in turn indicates that outing does not invoke on an individual’s privacy since an individual’s sexual orientation is the one revealed not their sexual behaviors. However, this could also lead to invading the secrecy of an individual which could lead them to be viewed differently in the society. Despite the overlapping normative privacy and secrecy, there is no normative privacy. Mohr infers that there is no gay privacy violated by making their sexual orientation public (Mohr, 13). Telling the public that someone who is not willing to be known as a homosexual, one reveals a secret. This is due to the revelation of what was hidden. Conveying the secret is only done by revealing that a certain individual has erotic sexual desires for an individual of the same sex. However, this individual does not convey the sexual behavior of this gay individual. There are multiple signs of inferring from the public that a certain individual is gay. However, there are multiple differences between reporting to the press that an individual is gay and detailing to the same press about the sexual activities of this gay individual. This is similar to a normal couple having sex. This couple expects that what they do in their sex life remains between them. However, it is also possible that some individuals would start viewing the gay people differently if they are outed. Some of the people in the society view being gay as dirty and disgusting and imagining or digging in the sexual behaviors of this gay individual could result into the gay individuals not being accepted in the society. When one indicates that an individual is gay, they are not necessarily inferring to their sexual activities. Privacy protects sexual activities not sexual orientation of an individual. The alleged right against outing is not covered my normative privacy and has difficulties to form. This right is not unobjectionable against the self-discrimination of the outee. The outee could tell the truth, lie or remain silent since the outer does not force the outee to tell the truth. However, the outer could give a detailed account of the sexual activity of the gay individual thus invading their privacy. When outing is undertaken, the individual is free of undergoing a complexity of lies that accompany this gay lifestyle. The person who is entitled to keeping this secret about the gay individual is supposed to keep the secret in the closet forever. This individual with this duty undergoes complexities of actions and omissions that might include lies, deceptions and morally coerced silences. Unlike in cases of close relations where a parent has such a right over their child, third parties which individuals have no contractual agreements have no right to demand anything from an individual. They cannot limit an individual to limit their independence to write or print in the case of outing for their own sake. However, outing could also do more harm than good for the gay individual since they would not be viewed the same in the society. People in the society could start judging them by their sexual orientation. Outing does not violate privacy of an individual. However, it is important to hold individuals not by their own standards but by the standards of justice. Thus, if it is wrong to our people in the arms of justice, then it is also wrong to do so by individuals’ own standards that they think should be outed. Secondly, it would be unfair to mess a fundamental right that is waived as a result of hypocrisy. The reason is that there would not be many rights around since every individual has their hypocritical moment at some point in time. Considering that outing does not violate privacy, there is a right to the closet which is independent of privacy. However, the dynamics of the closet fails to explain what a right is. A right is permission to act in accordance with an individual’s desires. However, outing could also be a disadvantage to the gay individual. There are two types of coercions that compel the gay’s closet. One is the material or economic coercion. For instance, there are some gay people who stay in such relationships since it is a means for them to remain employed. By an individual gay hiding the way they live due to fear of being punished is neither a right nor privacy. It is being in a closet, which is often maintained by force not by choice. However, there are individuals that have been taught that it’s dirty to be gay thus make them afraid to come out clean about it. There is also the spiritual coercion where other people do the coercion of gay people. According to Mohr, people in power cannot choose for themselves to be considered as a scum (Mohr 26). To avoid other people from considering them as such is therefore not a moral choice of a free agent. The two types of coercion cover the closet; thus the closet cannot be considered as a right. The reason is that by following the closet, individuals simply follow what others dictate but not what they wish to do. However, consent can make the right to privacy to become into being. For instance, if a gay individual makes one swear not to tell before they drop the bomb that they are gay, then this gay individual can raise a legitimate complaint since the individual has violated the terms of agreement. Secrecy about the closet is a code within the gay community since they have an unwritten rule that one should not publicly report the sexual orientation of the other individual. People view this code as having been built out of the act of consent. However, keeping this code of silence could also mean that the individual will keep deceiving others for a long time, especially their loved ones. A gay individual tries to assure their happiness by abiding to the closet case as Mohr Infers (Mohr 31). The individual goes about their normal activities and enjoys privileges in the society that he would not have if he was openly gay. One accepts and absorbs the society’s view of gays to avoid harm by accepting the closet. The individual becomes a puppet to the various values and norms of a society. Life in this closet, however, requires an individual to openly lie to accommodate their sexual orientations and conceal them from the society. This individual may then require another individual to keep a secret for them about their sexual orientation. However, this will make them lie and deceive other to maintain this secret of their sexual orientation. The guilt that accompanies this secret may accompany them for the rest of their lives. Thus, to avoid this, it would be better for them to out and stay free of the lies and the deceptions. If the gay individual fails to support outing, it only proves how the individual gay person believes the sexual orientation to be: loathsome, disgusting, kept from the sight of others, nauseating and filthy in its own way. This is quite remote from the valued privacy. There are individuals who claim that lying by the closet is a means for the gay individual to maintain their self-defense against prejudices in the society for the sexual orientation. However, despite outing being morally expected, there are some bad reasons for outing. If the reason for outing is not the perpetuation for self-respect, then it becomes morally dubious. One good example is the vindictive outing where the outing of the gays contributes to their own oppression. They call on the cultural anti-gay forces to destroy gay individuals. This is nevertheless not the case in all situations. There are some societies that accept the gay individuals and view them as other ordinary citizens in the society. Thus, the more convincing argument is that outing is morally required since outing entails revealing the sexual orientation and not the sexual behaviors of these individuals. Moreover, individuals are able to avoid all the lies and deceptions, and they are not ashamed of their sexual orientations. They do not let the societal norms and values to puppet them. However, if gay individuals choose not to out, then they have to deal with all the lies and the deceptions in a bid to safeguard their sexual orientation. They fear the judgment of others since they believe in the society’s values and norms so much that they have become their puppet. They view their sexual orientations as dirty and nauseating thus fear what others would think about them if they realized that they are gay. Thus, I agree with the author that outing for the gays and lesbians should be permissible morally since it only allows the revealing of sexual orientation but not sexual behaviors and this does not constitute privacy. Works Cited Mohr, Richard D. The outing controversy : privacy and dignity in gay ethics. 1993. Read More