<?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: A Picture Is Worth Two Words</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576</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: JiminColo</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7397</link>
		<dc:creator>JiminColo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7397</guid>
		<description>And for those gays that don&#039;t partake in sodomy? Are their relationships blessed? :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And for those gays that don&#8217;t partake in sodomy? Are their relationships blessed? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amsel</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7230</link>
		<dc:creator>Amsel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7230</guid>
		<description>&quot;At first they’re interesting and entertaining, but after a while they just become a part of your daily routine. The more inventive signs always gather a crowd, though.&quot;

My first year at UNC-Chapel Hill there was incident with our pit preacher - Gary Birdsong.  His message is not limited to gay people but also includes women.  All women should be in the kitchen, pregnant, &amp; housewives and should not be receiving higher education.  Long story short a woman was walking across campus in what he interpreted as appropriate clothing (long dress, heels, etc etc).  When he pointed out the woman as an example of how all women should dress, she stopped walking set her bag down &amp; stripped down to her undies then kept on walking.  

She is a bit of a legend around here,  I only wish I knew who she was to tell her she is my hero.

But in all fairness these people do have a right to free speech so long is it does not threaten anybody.  No one here likes him and it becomes a game to try &amp; make him freak out.  Personally I think these people push more moderates to supporting gay rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;At first they’re interesting and entertaining, but after a while they just become a part of your daily routine. The more inventive signs always gather a crowd, though.&#8221;</p>
<p>My first year at UNC-Chapel Hill there was incident with our pit preacher &#8211; Gary Birdsong.  His message is not limited to gay people but also includes women.  All women should be in the kitchen, pregnant, &amp; housewives and should not be receiving higher education.  Long story short a woman was walking across campus in what he interpreted as appropriate clothing (long dress, heels, etc etc).  When he pointed out the woman as an example of how all women should dress, she stopped walking set her bag down &amp; stripped down to her undies then kept on walking.  </p>
<p>She is a bit of a legend around here,  I only wish I knew who she was to tell her she is my hero.</p>
<p>But in all fairness these people do have a right to free speech so long is it does not threaten anybody.  No one here likes him and it becomes a game to try &amp; make him freak out.  Personally I think these people push more moderates to supporting gay rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7209</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7209</guid>
		<description>They generally stay in one of two areas, but I think it&#039;s ok pretty much anywhere on campus. It&#039;s a state university, and free speech is legitimate pretty much anywhere on campus unless it attempts to immediately incite violence.

At first they&#039;re interesting and entertaining, but after a while they just become a part of your daily routine. The more inventive signs always gather a crowd, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They generally stay in one of two areas, but I think it&#8217;s ok pretty much anywhere on campus. It&#8217;s a state university, and free speech is legitimate pretty much anywhere on campus unless it attempts to immediately incite violence.</p>
<p>At first they&#8217;re interesting and entertaining, but after a while they just become a part of your daily routine. The more inventive signs always gather a crowd, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason D</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7208</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7208</guid>
		<description>I still don&#039;t get it, honestly I don&#039;t.

The government can&#039;t tell me what to eat, when to eat it.  It doesn&#039;t tell me how often to bathe, what products to use.  They tell us to wear clothes, but that&#039;s only in public, and it&#039;s pretty obvious there is a large spectrum of different clothes that are acceptable.

I have the right to have my skin tattooed, punctured, and or branded.  I can dye my hair any color I want, shave it all off, or grow it indefinitely.

They don&#039;t tell me when to see the doctor, certainly don&#039;t order me to have any medical procedures.
They don&#039;t tell me where, when, or who I can hug, shake hands with, or kiss.  They leave that up to me and the person(s) involved.

The only time our government gets involved in what we do with our bodies is when it is dangerous to ourselves (drugs, alcohol, suicide) and or dangerous to others(drunk driving, rape, assault,murder).

So why do people think the government not only can, but should regulate my personal sexual activities?  Since when did my genitals become a controlled substance or a piece of government property?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still don&#8217;t get it, honestly I don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>The government can&#8217;t tell me what to eat, when to eat it.  It doesn&#8217;t tell me how often to bathe, what products to use.  They tell us to wear clothes, but that&#8217;s only in public, and it&#8217;s pretty obvious there is a large spectrum of different clothes that are acceptable.</p>
<p>I have the right to have my skin tattooed, punctured, and or branded.  I can dye my hair any color I want, shave it all off, or grow it indefinitely.</p>
<p>They don&#8217;t tell me when to see the doctor, certainly don&#8217;t order me to have any medical procedures.<br />
They don&#8217;t tell me where, when, or who I can hug, shake hands with, or kiss.  They leave that up to me and the person(s) involved.</p>
<p>The only time our government gets involved in what we do with our bodies is when it is dangerous to ourselves (drugs, alcohol, suicide) and or dangerous to others(drunk driving, rape, assault,murder).</p>
<p>So why do people think the government not only can, but should regulate my personal sexual activities?  Since when did my genitals become a controlled substance or a piece of government property?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7204</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:09:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7204</guid>
		<description>Suricou Raven,

I believe you are slightly inaccurate in your discussion of sodomy laws.  Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all laws that set about to criminalize homosexual sex.  

While there are some states that continue to hold those laws on their books &quot;as a matter of principle&quot; (or more accurately as a matter of pride in their own bigotry), they cannot be enforced nor can they be said to be &quot;the law&quot; - even in those states, sodomy is not a crime.  Those provisions would not need to be struck down, they already have been.

Arguably, a state could maintain a sodomy law that applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals (as some were written), but they would have to show that they were diligent in prosecuting heterosexuals and that their intent was not to intimidate homosexuals.  One of the arguments against sodomy laws was that while they were not inforced, they were a tool for discrimination and implied criminalization of a class of people.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Suricou Raven,</p>
<p>I believe you are slightly inaccurate in your discussion of sodomy laws.  Lawrence v. Texas invalidated all laws that set about to criminalize homosexual sex.  </p>
<p>While there are some states that continue to hold those laws on their books &#8220;as a matter of principle&#8221; (or more accurately as a matter of pride in their own bigotry), they cannot be enforced nor can they be said to be &#8220;the law&#8221; &#8211; even in those states, sodomy is not a crime.  Those provisions would not need to be struck down, they already have been.</p>
<p>Arguably, a state could maintain a sodomy law that applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals (as some were written), but they would have to show that they were diligent in prosecuting heterosexuals and that their intent was not to intimidate homosexuals.  One of the arguments against sodomy laws was that while they were not inforced, they were a tool for discrimination and implied criminalization of a class of people.</p>
<p>Wikipedia has a pretty good article.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zortnac</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7203</link>
		<dc:creator>zortnac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7203</guid>
		<description>Why do I look at this picture and get the feeling that it&#039;s somehow connected to, or part of, the Slavic evangelical anti-gay movement/culture?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why do I look at this picture and get the feeling that it&#8217;s somehow connected to, or part of, the Slavic evangelical anti-gay movement/culture?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason D</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7196</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7196</guid>
		<description>&quot;The drive to criminalise anal sex has two motivations:
1. Disgust. Bumsex, eeeeewwww!
2. Political advantage: It means most of the homosexual political activists could be dealt with by locking them in in prison where they cant campaign.&quot;

And one unmentioned downside.  Anal sex is not a requirement to be gay.  Lesbians, from what I understand, don&#039;t really bother with it at all.  While anal sex is popular among gay men, there seem to be plenty of men who aren&#039;t interested in it at all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The drive to criminalise anal sex has two motivations:<br />
1. Disgust. Bumsex, eeeeewwww!<br />
2. Political advantage: It means most of the homosexual political activists could be dealt with by locking them in in prison where they cant campaign.&#8221;</p>
<p>And one unmentioned downside.  Anal sex is not a requirement to be gay.  Lesbians, from what I understand, don&#8217;t really bother with it at all.  While anal sex is popular among gay men, there seem to be plenty of men who aren&#8217;t interested in it at all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suricou Raven</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7194</link>
		<dc:creator>Suricou Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7194</guid>
		<description>&quot;i’m confused. does this mean a guy and a girl can’t have anal sex, either?&quot;

Yep. Some of the anti-gay group really want homosexuality to be criminalised. Criminalising heterosexual anal sex would be a consequence they welcome, but not their main objective.

The drive to criminalise anal sex has two motivations:
1. Disgust. Bumsex, eeeeewwww!
2. Political advantage: It means most of the homosexual political activists could be dealt with by locking them in in prison where they cant campaign.

The idea of &#039;recriminalising sodomy&#039; isn&#039;t strictly accurate - in many states, it already *is* a criminal offense - some have laws banning all anal sex, some only anal sex between same-gender people. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi (Ten year jail time per act!), North Carolina (10yr again), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

But in those states, its not enforced, because the police know that if they were to try it would almost certinly result in the law being struck down in court as happened in eleven states, one of which went on to set the Lawrence vs Texas precident. Nonetheless they remain on the books. I have no wonder how long before some local police department tries to use them against someone who actually fights it in court and draws attention to these old laws.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;i’m confused. does this mean a guy and a girl can’t have anal sex, either?&#8221;</p>
<p>Yep. Some of the anti-gay group really want homosexuality to be criminalised. Criminalising heterosexual anal sex would be a consequence they welcome, but not their main objective.</p>
<p>The drive to criminalise anal sex has two motivations:<br />
1. Disgust. Bumsex, eeeeewwww!<br />
2. Political advantage: It means most of the homosexual political activists could be dealt with by locking them in in prison where they cant campaign.</p>
<p>The idea of &#8216;recriminalising sodomy&#8217; isn&#8217;t strictly accurate &#8211; in many states, it already *is* a criminal offense &#8211; some have laws banning all anal sex, some only anal sex between same-gender people. Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi (Ten year jail time per act!), North Carolina (10yr again), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia.</p>
<p>But in those states, its not enforced, because the police know that if they were to try it would almost certinly result in the law being struck down in court as happened in eleven states, one of which went on to set the Lawrence vs Texas precident. Nonetheless they remain on the books. I have no wonder how long before some local police department tries to use them against someone who actually fights it in court and draws attention to these old laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason D</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7190</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7190</guid>
		<description>From what I understand, the definition of sodomy can be very broad to include anything that isn&#039;t male to female vaginal penetration in the missionary position.

It amazes me that people think it&#039;s any of their business what two consenting adults do with their body parts, especially when it harms neither of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I understand, the definition of sodomy can be very broad to include anything that isn&#8217;t male to female vaginal penetration in the missionary position.</p>
<p>It amazes me that people think it&#8217;s any of their business what two consenting adults do with their body parts, especially when it harms neither of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avery Dame</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576/comment-page-1#comment-7187</link>
		<dc:creator>Avery Dame</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/04/1576#comment-7187</guid>
		<description>It is, Emily. My campus (University of Alabama) is currently hosting Brother Micah and Sister Elizabeth, Holiness Pentecostal open-air screamers. They&#039;re restricted rather firmly to the &quot;free speech zone&quot; of the campus and can be removed if they become a serious disturbance or are under repeated threat of violence. Traveling screamers tend to fund their campaigns through assault lawsuits and church funds, so it&#039;s to their advantage to be punched.

They&#039;re are usually a one-week show, the only time when Southern Baptists and the GLBT organization can unite in their common dislike for loud, disturbing con-men assholes who hit bibles. For a good idea of the usual, you can Youtube Micah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is, Emily. My campus (University of Alabama) is currently hosting Brother Micah and Sister Elizabeth, Holiness Pentecostal open-air screamers. They&#8217;re restricted rather firmly to the &#8220;free speech zone&#8221; of the campus and can be removed if they become a serious disturbance or are under repeated threat of violence. Traveling screamers tend to fund their campaigns through assault lawsuits and church funds, so it&#8217;s to their advantage to be punched.</p>
<p>They&#8217;re are usually a one-week show, the only time when Southern Baptists and the GLBT organization can unite in their common dislike for loud, disturbing con-men assholes who hit bibles. For a good idea of the usual, you can Youtube Micah.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

