<?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: Maggie Thinks You&#8217;re a Bully&#8230; and She Wants You to Pay For It</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546</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: Penguinsaur</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49526</link>
		<dc:creator>Penguinsaur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49526</guid>
		<description>&quot;@Penguinsaur: I don’t get your meaning. Why introduce race into that sentence? Sincere question.&quot;

Because for all their frantic denials their is no difference between denying people marriage because of something they cant change and doesn&#039;t affect them in any way 40 years ago and denying people marriage because of something they cant change and doesn&#039;t affect them in any way today. If the people opposed to gays marrying aren&#039;t bigots, then neither are the people opposed to interracial marriage. I refuse to pretend theirs some massive difference in circumstance when no one has ever been able to show me one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;@Penguinsaur: I don’t get your meaning. Why introduce race into that sentence? Sincere question.&#8221;</p>
<p>Because for all their frantic denials their is no difference between denying people marriage because of something they cant change and doesn&#8217;t affect them in any way 40 years ago and denying people marriage because of something they cant change and doesn&#8217;t affect them in any way today. If the people opposed to gays marrying aren&#8217;t bigots, then neither are the people opposed to interracial marriage. I refuse to pretend theirs some massive difference in circumstance when no one has ever been able to show me one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49502</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49502</guid>
		<description>Seems clear enough to me.  Maggie wouldn&#039;t expect to not get lambasted if she were opposing people marrying on the basis of race, its no different when its on the basis of sexual orienataion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems clear enough to me.  Maggie wouldn&#8217;t expect to not get lambasted if she were opposing people marrying on the basis of race, its no different when its on the basis of sexual orienataion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken in Riverside</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49497</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken in Riverside</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49497</guid>
		<description>@Penguinsaur: I don&#039;t get your meaning.  Why introduce race into that sentence?  Sincere question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Penguinsaur: I don&#8217;t get your meaning.  Why introduce race into that sentence?  Sincere question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GreenEyedLilo</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49493</link>
		<dc:creator>GreenEyedLilo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:41:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49493</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m guessing that when she was a little girl, Maggie found the &quot;stop hitting yourself!&quot; playground trick hilarious.

El Rose, nobody&#039;s trying to take anything away from you or Maggie.  Remember that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m guessing that when she was a little girl, Maggie found the &#8220;stop hitting yourself!&#8221; playground trick hilarious.</p>
<p>El Rose, nobody&#8217;s trying to take anything away from you or Maggie.  Remember that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Penguinsaur</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49491</link>
		<dc:creator>Penguinsaur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49491</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;When people believe marriage is the union of one white man and one white woman, they are lambasted by your side.&lt;/i&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>When people believe marriage is the union of one white man and one white woman, they are lambasted by your side.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49484</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:55:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49484</guid>
		<description>Difference between NOMers and gay people- NOMers can&#039;t imagine a world where gays and straights can coexist peacefully, but gay people can imagine a world where that IS possible.

And that is the crucial difference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Difference between NOMers and gay people- NOMers can&#8217;t imagine a world where gays and straights can coexist peacefully, but gay people can imagine a world where that IS possible.</p>
<p>And that is the crucial difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: homer</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49482</link>
		<dc:creator>homer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49482</guid>
		<description>She makes a living stirring up hatred against LGBT people. She does it for the money. She is evil, plain, unadulturated evil.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>She makes a living stirring up hatred against LGBT people. She does it for the money. She is evil, plain, unadulturated evil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49480</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49480</guid>
		<description>&quot;We got ours, and we ain&#039;t sharin&#039; it with no damn queers!&quot; That is their whole argument. To the dungheap of history with them! Sooner or later SOMEONE will read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and decide we are entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws. We have to keep shouting until they hear.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We got ours, and we ain&#8217;t sharin&#8217; it with no damn queers!&#8221; That is their whole argument. To the dungheap of history with them! Sooner or later SOMEONE will read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and decide we are entitled to Equal Protection of the Laws. We have to keep shouting until they hear.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priya Lynn</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49475</link>
		<dc:creator>Priya Lynn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49475</guid>
		<description>Exceptional post Bruce, you really summed it up in a profound and powerful way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exceptional post Bruce, you really summed it up in a profound and powerful way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Garrett</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/09/08/14546/comment-page-1#comment-49473</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Garrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=14546#comment-49473</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;When people believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, they are lambasted by your side. &lt;/i&gt;

It&#039;s one thing to believe something and another to insist same sex couples can&#039;t get married whether or not they believe it too.  That&#039;s injecting those beliefs into the lives of other people.  Other decent, loving, devoted people, who don&#039;t deserve having their hopes and dreams dashed apart on the barren shoals of Gallagher&#039;s beliefs.  

The scorched earth war to deny gay couples the right to marry starts with a bedrock premise that the nature of the love between men or between women is so sterile, so grotesque, as to place it so far beyond the pale of normalcy that even the mere suggestion that it might possibly be of the same devoted and loving nature as heterosexual unions amounts to a profane attack on heterosexuals.  That&#039;s where this is coming from.  No where else.  Every time NOM insists that marriage is between a man and a woman they are saying, in effect, that homosexual couples don&#039;t love, they just have sex, that homosexuals are not so fully human that they Can love, honor and cherish in the way heterosexuals do.  Every cheap rationalization for excluding same-sex couples from the sanctuary of marriage boils down, sooner or later, to this one thing: that homosexual unions aren&#039;t unions at all, but hollow, if not profane imitations of genuine heterosexual ones.  One of the NOM board members, Orson Scott Card, has said so explicitly. 

It is an assault, not just on our households, but on our essential human identity.  Gallagher there is merely complaining that the people her political machine is brutalizing are fighting back.  But this is not the 1950s.  Gay folk don&#039;t suffer quietly in silence anymore.  We are not monsters, we are not empty shells, we are human beings.  It is grotesque to accuse this community of being bullies simply for defending the honor and the dignity of our love.  

Or perhaps Gallagher herself would merely shrug and quietly slink off were the government to cut off Her marriage ring.  If so, then I am sorry for her.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>When people believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman, they are lambasted by your side. </i></p>
<p>It&#8217;s one thing to believe something and another to insist same sex couples can&#8217;t get married whether or not they believe it too.  That&#8217;s injecting those beliefs into the lives of other people.  Other decent, loving, devoted people, who don&#8217;t deserve having their hopes and dreams dashed apart on the barren shoals of Gallagher&#8217;s beliefs.  </p>
<p>The scorched earth war to deny gay couples the right to marry starts with a bedrock premise that the nature of the love between men or between women is so sterile, so grotesque, as to place it so far beyond the pale of normalcy that even the mere suggestion that it might possibly be of the same devoted and loving nature as heterosexual unions amounts to a profane attack on heterosexuals.  That&#8217;s where this is coming from.  No where else.  Every time NOM insists that marriage is between a man and a woman they are saying, in effect, that homosexual couples don&#8217;t love, they just have sex, that homosexuals are not so fully human that they Can love, honor and cherish in the way heterosexuals do.  Every cheap rationalization for excluding same-sex couples from the sanctuary of marriage boils down, sooner or later, to this one thing: that homosexual unions aren&#8217;t unions at all, but hollow, if not profane imitations of genuine heterosexual ones.  One of the NOM board members, Orson Scott Card, has said so explicitly. </p>
<p>It is an assault, not just on our households, but on our essential human identity.  Gallagher there is merely complaining that the people her political machine is brutalizing are fighting back.  But this is not the 1950s.  Gay folk don&#8217;t suffer quietly in silence anymore.  We are not monsters, we are not empty shells, we are human beings.  It is grotesque to accuse this community of being bullies simply for defending the honor and the dignity of our love.  </p>
<p>Or perhaps Gallagher herself would merely shrug and quietly slink off were the government to cut off Her marriage ring.  If so, then I am sorry for her.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

