The reason given by same-sex marriage activists for "outing" conservative gays is that these people are "hypocrites" who therefore deserve to have their sexual orientation revealed to the world.
Decent people instinctively recoil at the idea of exposing someone's most personal sexual secrets to the world. Yet, many activists on behalf of gay rights engage in such behavior.
Movements are often better than their leaders -- and the movement to treat gays as fellow human beings created in God's image is a noble one -- but to the extent that a social agenda can be measured by its spokesmen and leaders, gay rights activism would have to be considered one of the least morally appealing movements of our time.
It is difficult to identify a more morally repellent act -- outside of violence -- than "outing" a gay person for political gain. Yet, those who "out" gay conservatives defend their actions -- and they do so by blaming their victims. The victims deserve it, the outers contend.
And why do gay Republicans and conservatives deserve to have the most private part of themselves revealed to the world?
Because, the activists argue, conservative gays are hypocrites, and hypocrites deserve no mercy.
But this argument is nonsensical. If the activists believe this argument, they do not think clearly. If they don't believe it, then they "out" gay conservatives for another reason: They wish to punish gays who do not follow the leftist party line on same-sex marriage and other gay-related issues, and they wish to intimidate other non-outed gays from adopting conservative values on such matters.
Why is the hypocrite argument nonsense? Because it is a non sequitur. Gay opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with hypocrisy.
Why can't a gay person oppose redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex?
Why can't a gay person believe that it is best for children to start out life with a mother and father as opposed to two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father?
Why does one have to be a heterosexual in order to make that argument?
Why is one's value system shaped by one's sexual orientation?
Why does the fact that one is gay and engages in homosexual behavior mean that he must advocate redefining marriage?
Why can heterosexuals think outside their sexual orientation and advocate same-sex marriage but homosexuals cannot think outside their sexual orientation and advocate retaining opposite-sex marriage?