Bobby, of course it doesn't mean squat to such "avowed" homosexualists and ladymen such as ourselves. But I get your drift... reprehensible gays and Lesbians who lend a helping hand to those who would would discriminate and legislate against us should be outed... it would make those individuals put their self-loathing homophobic money where there mouths were, and show the world just how traitorous they are.
In the case of Cooper, however, I must say I didn't read the Out piece at all. Indeed, as I may have stated on the M'Boards before, I still confuse it with Outweek. Oh well, you know me and the gay press! But all over the Web there is stuff about Michael's "outing" of Anderson. And Michael's reponse at the time:
Did I Ruin My Chances With Anderson Cooper
I see what Michael is saying in the piece. I mean, after all, it's his job to ask about someone's personal life: sex, romance-- the whole nine yards.
But what is "outing" exactly thse days? Is it exposing some one who is so closeted that absolutely no one knows he is gay? Or is it mentioning the fact that someone is gay who only some of the people know about? I mean, I can still remember my friend's mother being wrecked when Liberace died... how could she not have known?
I guess what spurred my original post were the people reponding negatively online to Richard Burnett's Hour magazine article.
I mean is it "outing" when someone's already "out", and you mention it again? The mind wobbles.
Perhaps it wouldn't be an issue at all if Cooper weren't so intent on sidestepping it. If he would simply say, "yeah I'm Gay, so what... next question!"
As far as knowing that Mr. Cooper was gay, weren't you standing right next to me at a local nightspot, Daddy, when he was holding hands with... oops, but I don't want to out anyone else!
quote:OBVIOUSLY he's a friend of Dorothy's! Like, duh. How could any son of Gloria Vanderbilt not be?
LOL Lexie, I had even totally forgotten that!