<?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: Colin Powell Calls for Review of DADT, But Not Its Repeal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:08:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Burr</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44208</link>
		<dc:creator>Burr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44208</guid>
		<description>This whole shower scenario is a load of bullcrap.

Who rapes who more often in the case of a straight and gay pair of men?

Straight guys rape the gay men more often. That&#039;s a fact. We&#039;re more scared in the shower than you, and yet we deal with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole shower scenario is a load of bullcrap.</p>
<p>Who rapes who more often in the case of a straight and gay pair of men?</p>
<p>Straight guys rape the gay men more often. That&#8217;s a fact. We&#8217;re more scared in the shower than you, and yet we deal with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard W. Fitch</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44206</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard W. Fitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44206</guid>
		<description>Advocate:  July 06, 2009 
Veteran Takes the Lead on DADT Bill 
By Michelle Garcia
U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports. 
Read the rest of the article:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Advocate:  July 06, 2009<br />
Veteran Takes the Lead on DADT Bill<br />
By Michelle Garcia<br />
U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports.<br />
Read the rest of the article:<br />
<a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard W. Fitch</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44205</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard W. Fitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44205</guid>
		<description>Since much of this discussion has now turned to &quot;Shower Panic&quot;, I&#039;ll insert a bit of commentary from the latest issue of Men&#039;s Health. Entitled: &quot;Barenaked numbers - we reveal the raw data about nudity&quot;.  
Number of guys who say showering in HS gym class made them uncomfortable: 50%.
Number who say they were so freaked out that they refused to hit the showers as a result: 20%. 
I don&#039;t claim this to be highly scientific, but I do feel it reflects a trend regarding body image in our culture. Most of the men who are in the armed forces are not far past that HS age (and mentality). It is also worth noting that the same applies to younger men at Y&#039;s and other health facilities.  Many leave in their sweaty workout clothes rather than shower in a public place. Does it have to do with &quot;gays ogling&quot; them or is it our culture has become so obsessed with the &quot;perfect body&quot; that we have become ashamed of being &quot;normal/average&quot; instead of elite? If &quot;Shower Panic&quot; is the only or main justification for DADT then our culture is in a very sorry state of affairs.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since much of this discussion has now turned to &#8220;Shower Panic&#8221;, I&#8217;ll insert a bit of commentary from the latest issue of Men&#8217;s Health. Entitled: &#8220;Barenaked numbers &#8211; we reveal the raw data about nudity&#8221;.<br />
Number of guys who say showering in HS gym class made them uncomfortable: 50%.<br />
Number who say they were so freaked out that they refused to hit the showers as a result: 20%.<br />
I don&#8217;t claim this to be highly scientific, but I do feel it reflects a trend regarding body image in our culture. Most of the men who are in the armed forces are not far past that HS age (and mentality). It is also worth noting that the same applies to younger men at Y&#8217;s and other health facilities.  Many leave in their sweaty workout clothes rather than shower in a public place. Does it have to do with &#8220;gays ogling&#8221; them or is it our culture has become so obsessed with the &#8220;perfect body&#8221; that we have become ashamed of being &#8220;normal/average&#8221; instead of elite? If &#8220;Shower Panic&#8221; is the only or main justification for DADT then our culture is in a very sorry state of affairs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44201</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44201</guid>
		<description>Timothy-- right on as always. But what is important, as always, is the subtext, which is:

Gay men are so oversexed, so promiscuous, so uncontrollable, predatory and deviant, that we will force our unwanted attentions on those poor straight boys, regardless of the consequences.

We are just so other, so different, so unlike normal folks, outside the bounds of normal behaviors and expectations, with no possible connections to the normal world, lacking in all the simple social controls and basic good manners that such normal folks take as, well, normal.... (take a breath!)

and most importantly, so dangerous...

that we MUST be kept out. 

Well, actually, we don&#039;t have to be kept out. It&#039;s fine if we&#039;re there. just don&#039;t let the straight boys know, because it scares them. Because we&#039;re not just like them. Unless you&#039;re thinking like Quo-- the policy is too tolerant, and you have to keep all gays out, even though that is impossible UNLESS THEY TELL YOU!!!! Which is the whole point of DADT!!! Because there is no test, no smoking limp wrist, to tell you. And in fact, as penile plthymywhatchamacallits show, the more anti-gay you are, the harder it makes your dick.

This kind of silly thinking makes my head hurt.

Those of us in the reality based community have one simple question, the very posing of which demolishes the stupidity of the argument, which several others have already pointed out: viz,

What in hell do those people think we have been doing all of these years, decades, and centuries... 

SENDING OURSELVES OUT WITH THE LAUNDRY FOR DRY-CLEANING?

The whole thing is an obfuscation, because the subtext is the only &quot;truth&quot; in the Great Shower Controversy. It is the Great Fear and the Great Hate at the heart of it all. Gay people are already in the military, taking showers with their buddies and buddettes, AND THE KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Not to mention, those of us in the reality-based community also know that straight boys and straight girls check out other people in the showers to compare various endowments. It&#039;s normal and natural. I even check out the women when I go to mixed sex places, and I haven&#039;t got the slightest interest in them. But I&#039;m smart enough not to stare, or make someone uncomfortable. Same as I would do if I were looking at cute human boys. Because I&#039;m a sensitive and caring human being, not some right winger&#039;s worst fears.

So, Quo and Richard. You really need to acknowledge the subtext here, though I&#039;m sure your point of view prevents you from even thinking that one is there. Because this is the only true thing, however unacknowledged, in all that you have said. Especially, Richard, is is not this pick-and-choose thing that you think we do, especially at this site. It is just your prejudice against gay people speaking, not some reality that you could put forth about gay people in defiance to our lies and propagandizing. You&#039;ve already made your decisions about gay people, and they are not relevant to anything like reality. Your fundamental belief, for whatever reason you may have-- and I couldn&#039;t begin to guess why-- is that GAY-IS-BAD-DANGEROUS-EVIL-SCARY and whatever else you got going. After that point, you are just making it up. It is what the bigots and the haters have done forever, whether the object is black people, Jews, gays, Muslims, women, or anyone else.

Of COURSE you don&#039;t see it as prejudice. It&#039;s just what you think. The problem is that you believe everything you think. And you really shouldn&#039;t. Reality is a great antidote. You can change. Really you can. But you must WANT to change.

Stanley Kurtz is another great example of this kind of mindset. I can&#039;t decide whether he is evil or stupid. PT Barnum must have been thinking of him, or possibly any representative of Exodus, when he said &quot;There&#039;s a sucker born every minute.&quot; No, actually, PT would have said &quot;What a shoddy defense of flim-flam!&quot; 

Kurtz&#039;s so called thesis is flim-flam, not science. It&#039;s not statistics. It&#039;s not even sociology. It is a political hit piece, and nothing else. At least two studies that I know have have debunked what he had to say using his own data, just not the doctored variety of it. And of course, I am unaware of any serious research, apart from Paul Cameron and Tony Perkins, that supports this nonsense. And of course, again, those of us in the reality based community, as opposed to Stanley&#039;s fevered version of reality, have a two step question, the posing of which demolishes his argument:

1) Gay people are already living together as if they were legally married, and have been for decades, if not centuries. Why would the legal recognition of this reality suddenly lead to the disintegration of the marriage and the hetero family unit? (Answer: because Stanley already believes that the connection is there, so it was fairly easy to find. You just snip this end of the data off, and then that end, and the middle part supports your belief system. If you squint properly). 

2) If this were actually the case, and gay marriage is so detrimental to the health of the hetero family, then WHY ON EARTH HAVE THE GOVERNMENTS OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE? Of course, only Stanley knows the truth, unless those uber-powerful homos are actually running the political structures of 8 countries in the world. And the press. And the churches. and the voters. And the minds of all decent, fair-minded, caring human beings who can recognize bigotry for what it is.

Shhhhhhhhh. Don&#039;t tell anyone. They&#039;ll get you.

Nonsense. Nonsense. And more nonsense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Timothy&#8211; right on as always. But what is important, as always, is the subtext, which is:</p>
<p>Gay men are so oversexed, so promiscuous, so uncontrollable, predatory and deviant, that we will force our unwanted attentions on those poor straight boys, regardless of the consequences.</p>
<p>We are just so other, so different, so unlike normal folks, outside the bounds of normal behaviors and expectations, with no possible connections to the normal world, lacking in all the simple social controls and basic good manners that such normal folks take as, well, normal&#8230;. (take a breath!)</p>
<p>and most importantly, so dangerous&#8230;</p>
<p>that we MUST be kept out. </p>
<p>Well, actually, we don&#8217;t have to be kept out. It&#8217;s fine if we&#8217;re there. just don&#8217;t let the straight boys know, because it scares them. Because we&#8217;re not just like them. Unless you&#8217;re thinking like Quo&#8211; the policy is too tolerant, and you have to keep all gays out, even though that is impossible UNLESS THEY TELL YOU!!!! Which is the whole point of DADT!!! Because there is no test, no smoking limp wrist, to tell you. And in fact, as penile plthymywhatchamacallits show, the more anti-gay you are, the harder it makes your dick.</p>
<p>This kind of silly thinking makes my head hurt.</p>
<p>Those of us in the reality based community have one simple question, the very posing of which demolishes the stupidity of the argument, which several others have already pointed out: viz,</p>
<p>What in hell do those people think we have been doing all of these years, decades, and centuries&#8230; </p>
<p>SENDING OURSELVES OUT WITH THE LAUNDRY FOR DRY-CLEANING?</p>
<p>The whole thing is an obfuscation, because the subtext is the only &#8220;truth&#8221; in the Great Shower Controversy. It is the Great Fear and the Great Hate at the heart of it all. Gay people are already in the military, taking showers with their buddies and buddettes, AND THE KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE THEMSELVES. Not to mention, those of us in the reality-based community also know that straight boys and straight girls check out other people in the showers to compare various endowments. It&#8217;s normal and natural. I even check out the women when I go to mixed sex places, and I haven&#8217;t got the slightest interest in them. But I&#8217;m smart enough not to stare, or make someone uncomfortable. Same as I would do if I were looking at cute human boys. Because I&#8217;m a sensitive and caring human being, not some right winger&#8217;s worst fears.</p>
<p>So, Quo and Richard. You really need to acknowledge the subtext here, though I&#8217;m sure your point of view prevents you from even thinking that one is there. Because this is the only true thing, however unacknowledged, in all that you have said. Especially, Richard, is is not this pick-and-choose thing that you think we do, especially at this site. It is just your prejudice against gay people speaking, not some reality that you could put forth about gay people in defiance to our lies and propagandizing. You&#8217;ve already made your decisions about gay people, and they are not relevant to anything like reality. Your fundamental belief, for whatever reason you may have&#8211; and I couldn&#8217;t begin to guess why&#8211; is that GAY-IS-BAD-DANGEROUS-EVIL-SCARY and whatever else you got going. After that point, you are just making it up. It is what the bigots and the haters have done forever, whether the object is black people, Jews, gays, Muslims, women, or anyone else.</p>
<p>Of COURSE you don&#8217;t see it as prejudice. It&#8217;s just what you think. The problem is that you believe everything you think. And you really shouldn&#8217;t. Reality is a great antidote. You can change. Really you can. But you must WANT to change.</p>
<p>Stanley Kurtz is another great example of this kind of mindset. I can&#8217;t decide whether he is evil or stupid. PT Barnum must have been thinking of him, or possibly any representative of Exodus, when he said &#8220;There&#8217;s a sucker born every minute.&#8221; No, actually, PT would have said &#8220;What a shoddy defense of flim-flam!&#8221; </p>
<p>Kurtz&#8217;s so called thesis is flim-flam, not science. It&#8217;s not statistics. It&#8217;s not even sociology. It is a political hit piece, and nothing else. At least two studies that I know have have debunked what he had to say using his own data, just not the doctored variety of it. And of course, I am unaware of any serious research, apart from Paul Cameron and Tony Perkins, that supports this nonsense. And of course, again, those of us in the reality based community, as opposed to Stanley&#8217;s fevered version of reality, have a two step question, the posing of which demolishes his argument:</p>
<p>1) Gay people are already living together as if they were legally married, and have been for decades, if not centuries. Why would the legal recognition of this reality suddenly lead to the disintegration of the marriage and the hetero family unit? (Answer: because Stanley already believes that the connection is there, so it was fairly easy to find. You just snip this end of the data off, and then that end, and the middle part supports your belief system. If you squint properly). </p>
<p>2) If this were actually the case, and gay marriage is so detrimental to the health of the hetero family, then WHY ON EARTH HAVE THE GOVERNMENTS OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY LEGALIZED SAME SEX MARRIAGE? Of course, only Stanley knows the truth, unless those uber-powerful homos are actually running the political structures of 8 countries in the world. And the press. And the churches. and the voters. And the minds of all decent, fair-minded, caring human beings who can recognize bigotry for what it is.</p>
<p>Shhhhhhhhh. Don&#8217;t tell anyone. They&#8217;ll get you.</p>
<p>Nonsense. Nonsense. And more nonsense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily K</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44199</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44199</guid>
		<description>Honestly I thought it was about body parts too. I might not revel in showering with 20 other people at the same time but at least I can be certain that everybody else has (biologically speaking) roughly the same kind of body as I do. As for separate bathrooms, well I&#039;ve used all different kinds of bathrooms including mens rooms and I&#039;m glad they&#039;re separate because guys and gals just plain have different bathroom habits, that&#039;s all. In general I think either sex feels more comfortable around similar people with similar habits - i.e., peeing standing up out in the open vs. those who are dealing with tampons behind closed doors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Honestly I thought it was about body parts too. I might not revel in showering with 20 other people at the same time but at least I can be certain that everybody else has (biologically speaking) roughly the same kind of body as I do. As for separate bathrooms, well I&#8217;ve used all different kinds of bathrooms including mens rooms and I&#8217;m glad they&#8217;re separate because guys and gals just plain have different bathroom habits, that&#8217;s all. In general I think either sex feels more comfortable around similar people with similar habits &#8211; i.e., peeing standing up out in the open vs. those who are dealing with tampons behind closed doors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44198</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44198</guid>
		<description>I should add that this &quot;gay shower panic&quot; thing has been a red herring from the word &quot;go&quot;.  Gays and lesbians have been showering with straights in the military and every where else since showers were invented.  Its virtually never been a problem and clearly that isn&#039;t going to change by stopping discrimination against gays in the military.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should add that this &#8220;gay shower panic&#8221; thing has been a red herring from the word &#8220;go&#8221;.  Gays and lesbians have been showering with straights in the military and every where else since showers were invented.  Its virtually never been a problem and clearly that isn&#8217;t going to change by stopping discrimination against gays in the military.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44195</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44195</guid>
		<description>If society accepts as valid that gays shouldn&#039;t be allowed in the military because straights shouldn&#039;t have to shower with them, it logically follows that gays shouldn&#039;t be allowed to use public gyms, swimming pools, bathrooms, business workout facilities etc. because straights shouldn&#039;t have to be seen by them.  Clearly that&#039;s not just or workable and for the same reason we don&#039;t ban gays from public facilities we shouldn&#039;t be banning them from the military.

As to the idea that if we allow gays to shower with straight men that we have no reason to allow women to be free from showering with straight men, that does not follow.  If, for the sake of argument, we accept that its a bad thing for someone to have to shower with someone who may be sexually attracted to them, it minimizes the occurrences of this to seperate men and women because this means that in the vast majority of cases the people in showers are not attracted to each other whereas if men and women shower together in the vast majority of cases there is a potential attraction.  There is no perfect solution so the one that is best is to divide showers and other facilities by gender as we have always done.

If this supposed concern over showering were serious (and its not) the bigots would be proposing seperate shower facilites for men, women, gays, and lesbians.  They never propose that because this is raised as an excuse reject gay equality, there is no sincere desire to keep straight men from being eyed by gay men, they want this to be a problem to rationalize their call for inequality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If society accepts as valid that gays shouldn&#8217;t be allowed in the military because straights shouldn&#8217;t have to shower with them, it logically follows that gays shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to use public gyms, swimming pools, bathrooms, business workout facilities etc. because straights shouldn&#8217;t have to be seen by them.  Clearly that&#8217;s not just or workable and for the same reason we don&#8217;t ban gays from public facilities we shouldn&#8217;t be banning them from the military.</p>
<p>As to the idea that if we allow gays to shower with straight men that we have no reason to allow women to be free from showering with straight men, that does not follow.  If, for the sake of argument, we accept that its a bad thing for someone to have to shower with someone who may be sexually attracted to them, it minimizes the occurrences of this to seperate men and women because this means that in the vast majority of cases the people in showers are not attracted to each other whereas if men and women shower together in the vast majority of cases there is a potential attraction.  There is no perfect solution so the one that is best is to divide showers and other facilities by gender as we have always done.</p>
<p>If this supposed concern over showering were serious (and its not) the bigots would be proposing seperate shower facilites for men, women, gays, and lesbians.  They never propose that because this is raised as an excuse reject gay equality, there is no sincere desire to keep straight men from being eyed by gay men, they want this to be a problem to rationalize their call for inequality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44191</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:31:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44191</guid>
		<description>This one is so obvious that I&#039;m amused that we&#039;re taking it seriously.

The reason has nothing to do with orientation or &quot;gazing&quot; and everything to do with body parts.  Men and women shower separately because they always have.  In the US, anyway.

We raise our children not to see the other sex naked from a very young age.  They use separate bathrooms in kindergarten, shower separately in camp, have different showers in PE.  And eventually end up in the military.  Where, because of a lifetime of conditioning, they expect to shower in separate facilities.

Some cultures aren&#039;t as restrictive about seeing the other sex naked.  So, for them, showering together isn&#039;t a culture shock.

But there is no &quot;don&#039;t let a gay guy see me&quot; culture.  Every red-blooded hetero knows that there are gay guys at his gym.  And most just couldn&#039;t care less who sees him in the shower.  

And really, if you get all weird about a gay guy showering near you, then wait until he&#039;s done.  It&#039;s not like the entire platoon will fit in the shower at the same time anyway.  At least if you know who he is, you can make sure that your sensitive and frightened body doesn&#039;t fall under his &quot;gaze&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This one is so obvious that I&#8217;m amused that we&#8217;re taking it seriously.</p>
<p>The reason has nothing to do with orientation or &#8220;gazing&#8221; and everything to do with body parts.  Men and women shower separately because they always have.  In the US, anyway.</p>
<p>We raise our children not to see the other sex naked from a very young age.  They use separate bathrooms in kindergarten, shower separately in camp, have different showers in PE.  And eventually end up in the military.  Where, because of a lifetime of conditioning, they expect to shower in separate facilities.</p>
<p>Some cultures aren&#8217;t as restrictive about seeing the other sex naked.  So, for them, showering together isn&#8217;t a culture shock.</p>
<p>But there is no &#8220;don&#8217;t let a gay guy see me&#8221; culture.  Every red-blooded hetero knows that there are gay guys at his gym.  And most just couldn&#8217;t care less who sees him in the shower.  </p>
<p>And really, if you get all weird about a gay guy showering near you, then wait until he&#8217;s done.  It&#8217;s not like the entire platoon will fit in the shower at the same time anyway.  At least if you know who he is, you can make sure that your sensitive and frightened body doesn&#8217;t fall under his &#8220;gaze&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44166</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44166</guid>
		<description>I actually have read Kurtz-- quite throughly. My summary is childishly simpled minded because his thesis is simple minded. Oh golly gee. Thre fags are getting married, marriage is now worthless. Let&#039;s not. Oh golly gee. the fags are getting married. Let&#039;s not have children. 

Please. It is absurd on the face of it, is absurd when analyzed logically, and most important, it is absurd when analyzed factually. In fact, an analysis of his so-called thesis was done on these very pages, showing his thesis was completely cherry picked, or as we like to call it, fabricated.

It&#039;s one more example of striaght people behaving badly and blaming gay people for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually have read Kurtz&#8211; quite throughly. My summary is childishly simpled minded because his thesis is simple minded. Oh golly gee. Thre fags are getting married, marriage is now worthless. Let&#8217;s not. Oh golly gee. the fags are getting married. Let&#8217;s not have children. </p>
<p>Please. It is absurd on the face of it, is absurd when analyzed logically, and most important, it is absurd when analyzed factually. In fact, an analysis of his so-called thesis was done on these very pages, showing his thesis was completely cherry picked, or as we like to call it, fabricated.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s one more example of striaght people behaving badly and blaming gay people for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Wood</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/05/12913/comment-page-1#comment-44163</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Wood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=12913#comment-44163</guid>
		<description>You obviously haven&#039;t even read Kurtz b/c your &#039;summary&#039; of him is childishly simple-minded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You obviously haven&#8217;t even read Kurtz b/c your &#8216;summary&#8217; of him is childishly simple-minded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

