Do gay public figures have a responsibility to disclose their sexual orientation?

I think we should be more formal and go with "disclose their sexual orientation."

Despite Brianr's objections, I think this is ready.

I vote to get rid of the closet. (That expression isn't used so mucn these days.) We could also say, per MikeD, "disclose their sexual orientation," which is more formal.

But I like the wording otherwise.

sure "come out" is fine as long as it's clear, which I think it is. I actually like that better. let's approve

I disagree with JZipp.

I agree that maybe it should read just "come out" -- or maybe "disclose their sexual orientation."  The idea of outing is different than someone choosing to reveal their sexuality, but I'd say it fits under the umbrella of the way it's worded now.  It makes it broader, which I suppose will allow for a greater range of opinions. 

Looking back at this... could we omit "of the closet" and just say "come out"? Thoughts?

I like JZipp's suggestion as well

Okay, nice. I think the latest suggestion below is fair.

I like where gethro is taking this...

Do gay public figures have a responsibility to come out of the closet?

This question would cover the "Musto / Perez" feeling that marinaz mentions about outing a public figure as a "service" since that would clearly mean they feel the person has a responsibility...

It's a really interesting issue.

There are two slightly separate issues here. One is: "Should gay public figures be outed?" The other is: "Should gay public figures come out of the closet?"

The distinction, of course, is that one is voluntary. There are definitely those who believe that gay PFs should come out, but not involuntarily. Then there are  Musto and Hilton (I assume) who believe that outing is a public service.

This is a great overall issue, by the way.

no need for effect in this case.

Keith Boykin is actually saying talking about the impact of an African American coming out, which seems different:

In a world in which homosexuality and bisexuality are still constructed as abnormal and white, it does make a difference any time any black person comes out of the closet. It makes a world of difference in the black community, far more significant than the news about Elton, Ellen, Melissa or any of the other white lesbian and gay icons.

Another way to frame it is:

Should gay public figures have a responsibility to come out of the closet?

Under this wording, Keith boykin's evidence would fit:

Since it makes a difference, should Luther and Alicia actually come out? Assuming they're gay, that's still up to them.

The only reason why anyone should ever come out of the closet is because it works for that person, not because it works for anyone else.

Obviously Perez Hilton and Michael Musto would say 'yes', right?

This is too general. Not sure what we're debating.

Do we need to specify "effect on" something specifically? I don't necessarily know if we do... but any thoughts?

So, according to the ever-reliable wikipedia, outing is "a common term for taking someone 'out of the closet' - that is, publicising that someone is gay."   The practice has been used to force both celebrities and politicians  to disclose their sexual orientation (see:  Lance Bass, Neil Patrick Harris, and on and on).  Columnists like Michael Musto see those figures in the public arena that won't reveal their sexuality as cowardly, while others see it as a right to privacy issue and a personal choice.

So, does it do any good to shove someone out of the closet, even if it may expose their previous beliefs and statements as hyprocritical?