<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Holsinger Nomination and &#8220;Practicing Homosexuals&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/10/530/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/10/530</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:03:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Burroway</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/10/530/comment-page-1#comment-987</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Burroway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:26:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/10/530#comment-987</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not archaic when used as an adjective to describe the nature of attractions or sexuality. It is however, archaic when used as a noun in place of a person. 

The significant test is this: look at who&#039;s using the term in that fashion and why they use it. 

Even the New York Times style guide agrees:

http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/style.php

It is, in fact, as archaic as &quot;coloreds&quot; when that term is used in place of &quot;African-Americans.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not archaic when used as an adjective to describe the nature of attractions or sexuality. It is however, archaic when used as a noun in place of a person. </p>
<p>The significant test is this: look at who&#8217;s using the term in that fashion and why they use it. </p>
<p>Even the New York Times style guide agrees:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/style.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.glaad.org/media/guide/style.php</a></p>
<p>It is, in fact, as archaic as &#8220;coloreds&#8221; when that term is used in place of &#8220;African-Americans.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: quo</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/10/530/comment-page-1#comment-986</link>
		<dc:creator>quo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/10/530#comment-986</guid>
		<description>Jim,

The term &#039;homosexual&#039; isn&#039;t &#039;archaic.&#039; It is the technically correct term for persons who are sexually attracted to the same sex, and there is no good reason to object to its use.

I realize that it may seem like an unfriendly or clinical word, but one could just as well argue that &#039;gay&#039; is silly or frivolous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,</p>
<p>The term &#8216;homosexual&#8217; isn&#8217;t &#8216;archaic.&#8217; It is the technically correct term for persons who are sexually attracted to the same sex, and there is no good reason to object to its use.</p>
<p>I realize that it may seem like an unfriendly or clinical word, but one could just as well argue that &#8216;gay&#8217; is silly or frivolous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

