@SmashTheState – Well, if I offended you by stating my opinion, I’m sorry you were offended, though I’m not sorry I said what I did, I indeed stand behind it. Yes, it would be “nice”, indeed it would be wonderful, possibly even utopian if no one ever took anything but the hardest route in order to serve the greater good, but that’s an idealistic stance, not a realistic one. Fact is, an argument could be made about every living person that they did not do what was “morally pure”.
For example, it is probably “morally irresponsible” to choose not to join the military in a time of war, but that, just like any other question of morality is also a question of personal morality…morality can not be judged objectively. What if you didn’t join the military because you felt it was your moral duty to become a doctor, or a police officer, or a teacher, and would not be able to do so if you were dead? And let’s say you wanted to do one of these things but instead did join the military, wouldn’t you be morally irresponsible for doing so? You can create a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario for anyone, but you should not judge them based on your own criteria.
To you, it may be morally reprehensible to hide one’s homosexuality, but realize that to some, it might be immoral to be homosexual…some believe that it is a sin, that it is a choice, and that it can be changed, and by not doing whatever you can to assimilate to heterocentric culture, you are being immoral. Or some might believe it’s NOT a matter of choice, but it is nonetheless morally irresponsible to act on being gay, that is, a philosophy of “if you’re gay, that’s who you are, but you can’t act on it.” To come out when one is gay could be a moral issue either way, depending on your point of view. The problem is that “morality” is a concept which is flawed, whether it be applied objectively or subjectively.
To apply morality subjectively is little more than an opinion or point of view. What makes one’s point of view any more valid than that of anyone else? Nothing. You may think it’s immoral if I eat a steak on a Friday during lent. You may think it’s immoral if I eat anything with a face. You may think it’s immoral if I step on an ant. Conversely, you might see nothing morally reprehensible about beastiality or incest. You may think it’s immoral to teach children that we were descended from apes, or you may conversely think it’s immoral to deprive children of a scientific education and to provide them with a parochial one instead.
The point with subjective morality is it can be debated…I have my opinions, and I can stand up for them and argue them…I can listen to opposing arguments to tweak my opinions, I can learn things that strengthen or destroy my moral position. Furthermore, situations can dictate one’s morality…this may not be “morally pure”, but it is very common. It could be the Catholic couple who lives together for a while before they get married. It could be the guy who was dead broke, unemployed for 3 years, house in foreclosure who adds an extra $100 to the charitable contribution line on his taxes so he doesn’t have to pay in $15 that he would otherwise owe the government. It could be the person who pretends the check is in the mail when the power company calls to buy an extra couple days until they get paid so they can afford electricity and food. It could be the person who kills another human in self defense. Lying, stealing, adultery and murder would all seem to be no-brainers when it comes to passing judgement on one’s morallity, but depending on the situation, it may be the most morally pure choice. And yet, one might feel that to kill another is so morally unacceptable that he would allow himself to die at the hands of another, rather than fight back…that might be his/her morality.
Consider a parallel in recent US history…Martin Luther King, Jr preached non-violence as a way to racial equality, and it was a long, hard struggle, met with great peril. Many died while turning the other cheek in this battle. Malcom X however believed in equality by any means necessary. This argument is the same thing…whereas MLK would have felt that to resort to violence as a means to wage war against the oppressors was immoral, Malcom X would have felt that to not fight back as aggressively as one was capable would be immoral.
The other way to judge morality then is objectively, and to judge anything objectively, you need a concrete template, a set of rules. These are usually defined by religion, however different religions define morality in different ways, though there are certainly some near universals. It seems that to attempt to establish a hard and fast rule as to what constitutes moral behavior in relation to the public status of one’s sexuality is no different than establishing a rule that all homosexuality is a sin. To attempt to work in absolutes so that one can be objective is essentially facism, meaning that one is attempting to subjugate the free will of another to one’s own agenda.
To judge a friend for not coming out based on either your opinion that to not do so is immoral, or based on a standard to which you believe the whole world should hold itself that to not do so is immoral is 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. They are both attempts for one person to tell others how to think.
In other words, I am of the opinion that it is just as wrong of you to judge your friend’s failure to come out as morally irresponsible as it would be for anyone else to judge him for being gay as morally irresponsible. It is oppression of one’s free will based on another’s prejudices which are concretely applied without the subjectivity necessary to understand the underlying motivations. To dismiss any potential reasons one may have for making a deeply personal decision as “morally irresponsible” without even understanding what all the factors are which go into this decision is what is offensive to ME. So, we have both offended each other, I’ve explained why I believe it is not morally irresponbile to keep your private life private…you’ve explained why you believe it is an obligation to forego one’s own fears for the greater good. It is truly a noble aspiration, and it would be wonderful if such a standard could be practically applied, but it’s not realistic and it’s not fair to those who are harshly judged for following their own self-interests.
Furthermore, it is a disservice to everyone to dismiss rational fear as cowardice. In your opinion, anyone who gives into their fears is a coward. In my opinion, cowardice is about never confronting anyone in any way even when one’s core values are challenged. If it is your core value that all gays should come out so people would have no choice but to accept, that’s all well and good, but if it is your friend’s core value that one’s private life should remain private, then he can not live up to his moral standard and yours at the same time. One owes the first responsibility to one’s self…always, and it does not make a person a coward to make the decision with which he is most comfortable.