<?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: Southern Baptists oppose health insurance for gays</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020</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: CLS</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020/comment-page-1#comment-55679</link>
		<dc:creator>CLS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:10:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=17020#comment-55679</guid>
		<description>Land even misstates the nature of marriage as he would define it. It is NOT defined by its sexual nature at all, only by the gender of the participants. Many marriages are entirely sexless. No one from the SBC goes around checking that married couples are actually having intercourse in order to be legally defined as &quot;married.&quot; A gay man could marry a lesbian, both could have sex with other partners and never have sex with one another, and they would still be legally married.

Normally a &quot;ethicist&quot; would be more careful with definitions. But that is harder to do if ones position is logically inconsistent and based on fallacies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Land even misstates the nature of marriage as he would define it. It is NOT defined by its sexual nature at all, only by the gender of the participants. Many marriages are entirely sexless. No one from the SBC goes around checking that married couples are actually having intercourse in order to be legally defined as &#8220;married.&#8221; A gay man could marry a lesbian, both could have sex with other partners and never have sex with one another, and they would still be legally married.</p>
<p>Normally a &#8220;ethicist&#8221; would be more careful with definitions. But that is harder to do if ones position is logically inconsistent and based on fallacies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Waldrop</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020/comment-page-1#comment-55669</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Waldrop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:22:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=17020#comment-55669</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m trying to wrap my head around why the &quot;bill would &#039;discriminate&#039; against heterosexuals who are allowed to marry but decide that they don’t wish to do so.&quot; Okay, so any company that offers benefits to married couples--whether heterosexual or same-sex--is technically discriminating against single people who choose not to marry. If the Southern Baptists have a problem with discrimination against singles then they should oppose &lt;b&gt;any&lt;/b&gt; benefits for married couples.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m trying to wrap my head around why the &#8220;bill would &#8216;discriminate&#8217; against heterosexuals who are allowed to marry but decide that they don’t wish to do so.&#8221; Okay, so any company that offers benefits to married couples&#8211;whether heterosexual or same-sex&#8211;is technically discriminating against single people who choose not to marry. If the Southern Baptists have a problem with discrimination against singles then they should oppose <b>any</b> benefits for married couples.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wackadoodle</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020/comment-page-1#comment-55663</link>
		<dc:creator>wackadoodle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:11:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=17020#comment-55663</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;“Most Southern Baptists believe that the only relationship that should be defined by its sexual nature and should have &lt;b&gt;special benefits&lt;/b&gt; accrued to it is heterosexual marriage,” said Land, president of the Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, Nov. 25.&lt;/i&gt;

What&#039;s that thing they constantly accuse us of wanting when we want to be treated exactly the same as them? Starts with an S...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>“Most Southern Baptists believe that the only relationship that should be defined by its sexual nature and should have <b>special benefits</b> accrued to it is heterosexual marriage,” said Land, president of the Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission, Nov. 25.</i></p>
<p>What&#8217;s that thing they constantly accuse us of wanting when we want to be treated exactly the same as them? Starts with an S&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edwin</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020/comment-page-1#comment-55643</link>
		<dc:creator>Edwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=17020#comment-55643</guid>
		<description>Well I guess we could send all of our medical bills to Land and let him pay them for us. Since he thinks he deserves the reward for being a hetro trouble maker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well I guess we could send all of our medical bills to Land and let him pay them for us. Since he thinks he deserves the reward for being a hetro trouble maker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mel</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/30/17020/comment-page-1#comment-55642</link>
		<dc:creator>Mel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:02:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=17020#comment-55642</guid>
		<description>Easy. They claim Biblical infallibility but then give more weight to the passages they like. Which usually aren&#039;t the ones that Jesus had anything to do with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Easy. They claim Biblical infallibility but then give more weight to the passages they like. Which usually aren&#8217;t the ones that Jesus had anything to do with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

