<?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: Exodus VP: &#8220;Disney Makes Right Decision Concerning &#8216;Ex-Gay&#8217; Policy&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 21:00:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason D</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/comment-page-1#comment-64648</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21147#comment-64648</guid>
		<description>seems to me that ex-gay is less an orientation than an ideology.  If it were an orientation they&#039;d simply be straight.

This was an attempt to get validation for the political ideology of ex-gays, not for discrimination against celibate gays or heterosexuals with a &quot;complicated&quot; orientation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>seems to me that ex-gay is less an orientation than an ideology.  If it were an orientation they&#8217;d simply be straight.</p>
<p>This was an attempt to get validation for the political ideology of ex-gays, not for discrimination against celibate gays or heterosexuals with a &#8220;complicated&#8221; orientation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lymis</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/comment-page-1#comment-64643</link>
		<dc:creator>Lymis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21147#comment-64643</guid>
		<description>The &quot;ex-gay is an orientation&quot; thing is so internally contradictory and self-evidently pointless that it is hard to imagine it as anything OTHER than a trojan horse for something else. Good for Disney.

It is hard to imagine a company discriminating against straight people for being straight. If they include LGBT people, either specifically, or as part of a broad &quot;no discrimination based on sexual orientation&quot; clause, then there is no issue there either. Ex-gays would fall under one or the other for purposes of workplace discrimination.

So the only reason to insist on recognition of &quot;ex-gay&quot; as an explicit status would be to get either protection for voicing anti-gay views &quot;All I was saying is that they are filthy in God&#039;s eyes and can be cured if they try hard enough! Telling me to be quiet discriminates against me as ex-gay!&quot;) or to try to force either contributions to ex-gay causes or an end to contributions and participation in pro-equality causes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;ex-gay is an orientation&#8221; thing is so internally contradictory and self-evidently pointless that it is hard to imagine it as anything OTHER than a trojan horse for something else. Good for Disney.</p>
<p>It is hard to imagine a company discriminating against straight people for being straight. If they include LGBT people, either specifically, or as part of a broad &#8220;no discrimination based on sexual orientation&#8221; clause, then there is no issue there either. Ex-gays would fall under one or the other for purposes of workplace discrimination.</p>
<p>So the only reason to insist on recognition of &#8220;ex-gay&#8221; as an explicit status would be to get either protection for voicing anti-gay views &#8220;All I was saying is that they are filthy in God&#8217;s eyes and can be cured if they try hard enough! Telling me to be quiet discriminates against me as ex-gay!&#8221;) or to try to force either contributions to ex-gay causes or an end to contributions and participation in pro-equality causes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RCM</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/comment-page-1#comment-64527</link>
		<dc:creator>RCM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21147#comment-64527</guid>
		<description>Is being ex-gay caused by genetics, or nuture, or is it a choice?  Can two ex-gays of the same sex get married?  Is there any mention of ex-gays in the Bible?  Or any other holy book? Is being ex-gay against the law...anywhere in the world?  Has it ever been, through history?

Just wondering here...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is being ex-gay caused by genetics, or nuture, or is it a choice?  Can two ex-gays of the same sex get married?  Is there any mention of ex-gays in the Bible?  Or any other holy book? Is being ex-gay against the law&#8230;anywhere in the world?  Has it ever been, through history?</p>
<p>Just wondering here&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: soren456</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/comment-page-1#comment-64525</link>
		<dc:creator>soren456</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21147#comment-64525</guid>
		<description>So, ex-gay doesn&#039;t equal straight? It&#039;s a stand-alone?

What do they think about when they masturbate?

(With the door closed in case Jesus comes back just then.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, ex-gay doesn&#8217;t equal straight? It&#8217;s a stand-alone?</p>
<p>What do they think about when they masturbate?</p>
<p>(With the door closed in case Jesus comes back just then.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/comment-page-1#comment-64519</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21147#comment-64519</guid>
		<description>PFOX and Exodus have two problems:

1.  Exodus (for all their flaws) genuinely does see itself as a ministry for same-sex attracted strugglers.  While they engage in a lot of self-delusion, they - for the most part - are more into &quot;living a life of freedom from sin&quot; than bashing gays (though they don&#039;t hold back much from that either)

PFOX, on the other hand, is entirely and solely interested in anti-gay activism.  If something would hurt ex-gays, it matters not in the least as long as it is anti-gay.

2.  PFOX has adopted a position that is destructive to Exodus&#039; basic premise.

Exodus says, &quot;there&#039;s no such thing as orientation, just temptation.  The opposite of homosexuality is not a different orientation (heterosexuality), but a different lifestyle (holiness - submission to God).

PFOX comes along and says, &quot;not only is there orientation, but ex-gay is one.  Further, we demand that businesses and others honor our orientation (and, by extension, that of others)&quot;.

Most folks pretty clearly see through the ex-gay = orientation nonsense.  But PFOX&#039;s adoption of the orientation dialogue confirms (for many) that orientation exists and that homosexuality is not just a fetish or hobby or habit, but a direction of attraction.

I can see how Randy would be irked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PFOX and Exodus have two problems:</p>
<p>1.  Exodus (for all their flaws) genuinely does see itself as a ministry for same-sex attracted strugglers.  While they engage in a lot of self-delusion, they &#8211; for the most part &#8211; are more into &#8220;living a life of freedom from sin&#8221; than bashing gays (though they don&#8217;t hold back much from that either)</p>
<p>PFOX, on the other hand, is entirely and solely interested in anti-gay activism.  If something would hurt ex-gays, it matters not in the least as long as it is anti-gay.</p>
<p>2.  PFOX has adopted a position that is destructive to Exodus&#8217; basic premise.</p>
<p>Exodus says, &#8220;there&#8217;s no such thing as orientation, just temptation.  The opposite of homosexuality is not a different orientation (heterosexuality), but a different lifestyle (holiness &#8211; submission to God).</p>
<p>PFOX comes along and says, &#8220;not only is there orientation, but ex-gay is one.  Further, we demand that businesses and others honor our orientation (and, by extension, that of others)&#8221;.</p>
<p>Most folks pretty clearly see through the ex-gay = orientation nonsense.  But PFOX&#8217;s adoption of the orientation dialogue confirms (for many) that orientation exists and that homosexuality is not just a fetish or hobby or habit, but a direction of attraction.</p>
<p>I can see how Randy would be irked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/03/15/21147/comment-page-1#comment-64512</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=21147#comment-64512</guid>
		<description>Randy Thomas called another organization&#039;s message confusing?  That&#039;s too funny!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Randy Thomas called another organization&#8217;s message confusing?  That&#8217;s too funny!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
