Born: June 9, 1972
« Scratch & Sharp | Home | E85 video... »
August 23, 2006 at 09:50 am
My conservative readers (and my parents) are just going to love this one...
A short time ago, I was interviewed for a US-based national gay/lesbian magazine called The Advocate. I’m assuming that I was found via my Weblog and some of the stances I take on various issues here. The article is about boycotts that are sponsored by large corporations towards the gay community—and how they are widely ineffective. I’m the token “straight Christian who doesn’t pay attention to the Religious Right.”
I’ve scanned the article and saved it as a PDF that you can download and read:
The Advocate – July 18, 2006
The article is a pretty good one. In fact, it’s pretty interesting. And, it’s an issue—as you’ll see by the cover—that will probably be pretty largely read. The only real problem I have is, while I’m honored to be the first person mentioned in the article (drop-capped and all!), nothing was written about why I was chosen to be interviewed. I’m pretty sure a common question is going to be, “Who is this Tim Samoff guy anyway?” (You’ll see what I mean when you read it.)
Digg This Story | 
Save This Page
No Trackbacks
Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (16)
It is interesting how many people assume from a single issue assume a person is “Religious Right” I know some people (not you Tim or others who respond on your post) who have strong stances against gay issues but are not “right” they may be “religious” but not “right”. It is interesting how people assume by one single issue that a person is “religious right”. You can be the token straight guy who doesn’t pay attention to the religous right and still be against gay issues and the promotion thereof.
» Comment by dh () , on August 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Hmmm… I don’t think I am saying that, though. Whatever that might be.
So, just so everyone’s clear, here’s a definition of the “Religious Right”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_r..
So, just so everyone’s clear, here’s a definition of the “Religious Right”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_r..
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 24, 2008 at 07:18 am
Maybe my response was in relation to this stated in wikipedia: “Many object that the term Religious Right involves stereotyping by leftwing political activists.” and the point that not all who are not in favor of the gay agenda are part of the religious right or at the very least don’t state their support with the religious right even though on particular issues there may be some level of support for certain issues within the religious right. I know many in the Emergent camp who are adverse against labels maybe one shouldn’t label in general? Just a thought for consistency. For myself I have no problem with it as long as it is appropriate. I just bring this out to point out the inconsistency with those who are adverse against labels. IMHO
» Comment by dh () , on August 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Using labels itself isn’t a problem—in fact, it’s an essential shorthand necessary for thinking (the very statement you quote objecting to the use of labels uses the lable ‘leftwing’). The problem is when we forget that they are, in fact, labels and that individuals within those broad categories will have individual differences. Such is the problem with aggregates. Even if 99.9% of people agree on an issue, there’s still that 0.1% who don’t If you want greater accuracy, you have to compare on an issue-by-issue basis. But the labels are not without their truth value. And being against equal rights under the law for gay/lesbian people is a conservative position, whether it comes from someone otherwise conservative or not.
» Comment by wheat (URL), on August 25, 2008 at 07:47 am
Good points, Wheat.
» Comment by timsamoff () (URL), on August 25, 2008 at 08:07 am
I think I need to clarify. I personally have no problems with labels. However, when I speak with some people they have problem with using labels and then use labels when addressing those opposite of themselves. To me this seems to be a double standard. And being against equal rights under the law for gay/lesbian people is a conservative position, whether it comes from someone otherwise conservative or not.” True but labeling this “rightwing” is not appropriate in that the reason many states have laws against gay marriage was because many who are not “rightwing” agreed with the position against gay marriage. Does this make sense? If you are against labels because of “greater accracy” then be against it overal don’t make exceptions. To me using “rightwing” and being against labels is an oxymoron and an oxymoron even though I have no problems with labels whatsoever. I’m just pointing out double standards of those opposite of myself and reacting to them saying they are against labels and then use labels themselves. Does that make sense for to me the double standard makes no sense? (just trying to understand the logic.)
» Comment by DH () , on August 25, 2008 at 09:30 am
Also, I’m not against equal rights under the law for gay/lesbian people. I’m against special privileges. One must make the distinction to understand.
» Comment by dh () , on August 25, 2008 at 09:33 am
If you count civil marriage as a “special privilege” then you are, in fact, against equal rights under the law for gay/lesbian people. The same goes for discrimination in employment, housing, and parenting (adoption, etc.). Those are the sorts of rights that are of concern to most gay/lesbian people. And those are the same rights that stright people already have.
As to labels, I didn’t say I was against then for “greater accuracy.” I said if you wanted greater accuracy, you’d have to limit or qualify you use of them. No one here has said that they shouldn’t be used, just that their limitations should be kept in mind when they are.
As to labels, I didn’t say I was against then for “greater accuracy.” I said if you wanted greater accuracy, you’d have to limit or qualify you use of them. No one here has said that they shouldn’t be used, just that their limitations should be kept in mind when they are.
» Comment by wheat (URL), on August 25, 2008 at 09:51 am
If marriage is only between a husband and wife then anything beyond that is special priviledge. Also, there are other ways for them to get the same benefit without clouding the issue for them with marriage. Employment and housing? those aren’t priviledges those are rights. Marriage beyond a husband and wife are special privledges that I feel should be given. Your definition of rights, privledges and discrimination seem to go aboveand beyond what is originally intended.
With regard to labels, my point (being a supporter of labels) should we limit them if in the first place if they are correct? However, when blanket statements like a certain issue is “rightwing” when in fact it isn’t should be addressed. While being against special priviledge for gay and lesbians may be a conservative position, to label it in a derogatory way as being “rightwing” is totally strawman in light of the other issues of importants within the labels.
I haveread posts by some who say “they don’t watn to be labeled” and then those same people do labeling. To me they need to make up their mind rather than nitpick on one end and overgeneralize on the other end. Both are wrong.
With regard to labels, my point (being a supporter of labels) should we limit them if in the first place if they are correct? However, when blanket statements like a certain issue is “rightwing” when in fact it isn’t should be addressed. While being against special priviledge for gay and lesbians may be a conservative position, to label it in a derogatory way as being “rightwing” is totally strawman in light of the other issues of importants within the labels.
I haveread posts by some who say “they don’t watn to be labeled” and then those same people do labeling. To me they need to make up their mind rather than nitpick on one end and overgeneralize on the other end. Both are wrong.
» Comment by dh () , on August 25, 2008 at 10:37 am
I’m all for non-discrimination for gays and all people with regard to EEOC issues aswell as housing. I know no other “rightwingers” who are against those particular issues. There may be some minorities within the “rightwing” but overal non-discrimination with regard to employment and housing is there.
» Comment by dh () , on August 25, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Also, there are other ways for them to get the same benefit without clouding the issue for them with marriage.” If this were true, it might be a solution. But most of the same people who reject a broader definition of “marriage” (and, for that matter, “family”) also reject civil union legislation, leaving gay/lesbian couples having to foot the bill for legal work to establish what any other citizen can establish with a trip to the county courthouse. It confuses the issue to call an official straight union “marriage” and a gay/lesbian one a “civil union.” People marry as a way of publicly declaring their love for one another. Call me left wing if you like, but I think our society could use more of that.
» Comment by wheat (URL), on August 25, 2008 at 11:41 am
The point of this was the inconsistency by those who have problems with labels. As I pointed out, as long as one doesn’t change theoriginal definitions of the labels and they are used correctly, I have no problem with them. However, those who do need to rethink it if they are being nitpicky over the 1%. What confusion is there if marriage is between a man and woman? I think the confusion starts with gay/marriage not the otherway around. Also, why shouldn’t they be willing if they “so-call love each other” to “foot the bill” where once they do the legal work they in a sense established the “civil union” but not in a legal public way but a legal private way? (these are rhetorical because we probably need to say to agree to disagree)
» Comment by dh () , on August 25, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” – Anne Lamott
» Comment by doug () (URL), on August 25, 2008 at 1:00 pm
dh, what part of “equal rights under the law” do you not understand? If you allow one group of people to do something easily and make it harder for others to do the same thing, the second group isn’t being treated equally.
As to definitions, if “voting” were defined (as it has been defined in this country in the past) as the right of white, literate, male landowners to select their representatives, should we feel bound by that “original definition”? Of course not. Societies grow and change, as do the words they use to describe themselves.
I’m sure you’ll post two or three more times telling me that I’m wrong and you’re right. But I’ll let that slide, as neither one of us is likely to be convinced by the other’s arguments.
As to definitions, if “voting” were defined (as it has been defined in this country in the past) as the right of white, literate, male landowners to select their representatives, should we feel bound by that “original definition”? Of course not. Societies grow and change, as do the words they use to describe themselves.
I’m sure you’ll post two or three more times telling me that I’m wrong and you’re right. But I’ll let that slide, as neither one of us is likely to be convinced by the other’s arguments.
» Comment by wheat (URL), on August 25, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I don’t see any comparison to voting for minorities and this issue. Also, how many of these so called rights aren’t rights at all but priviledges?
» Comment by dh () , on August 27, 2008 at 09:42 am
I guess there’s room for two of us, whatever “us” is this year ?