<?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: The Requirement Isn&#8217;t Only To Report Gay People To Police. It&#8217;s To Report Everyone.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/23/42326/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/23/42326</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JesterKatz</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/02/23/42326/comment-page-1#comment-118211</link>
		<dc:creator>JesterKatz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=42326#comment-118211</guid>
		<description>(Formally &quot;guest&quot;, but changed because Timothy said please...or was it Jim?)

&quot;The more laws and order are made prominent, The more thieves and robbers there will be.&quot; ~ Lao-tzu

How God damned paranoid do you have to be by the thought of two guys or gals being in love, that you&#039;d make it so that pretty much, even physical contact with cloths on, as pointed out in clause 2, would qualify as having sex? This bill might as well simply state that being a social animal is &quot;unnatural&quot;, and should be a punishment. This bill is a mess, not only will is cause suspicion and betrayal, it practically encourages you to treat your neighbors as is they&#039;re conspiring to destroy civilization.

As I read this clause, I had a disturbing thought of what it meant: basically this is form of character-censorship. Or for the fans of George Orwell, this bill makes gays unpersons; homosexuality doesn&#039;t/shouldn&#039;t exist; if it does, it should be removed promptly. It&#039;s even worse when, as noted in Clauses 1 &amp; 2, anyone can be gay; so with that in mind, everyone is under infinite suspicion of being gay, so they must constantly &quot;act&quot; straight.
In Orwellian terms, this bill makes homosexuality both a thoughtcrime and a sexcrime all at once.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Formally &#8220;guest&#8221;, but changed because Timothy said please&#8230;or was it Jim?)</p>
<p>&#8220;The more laws and order are made prominent, The more thieves and robbers there will be.&#8221; ~ Lao-tzu</p>
<p>How God damned paranoid do you have to be by the thought of two guys or gals being in love, that you&#8217;d make it so that pretty much, even physical contact with cloths on, as pointed out in clause 2, would qualify as having sex? This bill might as well simply state that being a social animal is &#8220;unnatural&#8221;, and should be a punishment. This bill is a mess, not only will is cause suspicion and betrayal, it practically encourages you to treat your neighbors as is they&#8217;re conspiring to destroy civilization.</p>
<p>As I read this clause, I had a disturbing thought of what it meant: basically this is form of character-censorship. Or for the fans of George Orwell, this bill makes gays unpersons; homosexuality doesn&#8217;t/shouldn&#8217;t exist; if it does, it should be removed promptly. It&#8217;s even worse when, as noted in Clauses 1 &amp; 2, anyone can be gay; so with that in mind, everyone is under infinite suspicion of being gay, so they must constantly &#8220;act&#8221; straight.<br />
In Orwellian terms, this bill makes homosexuality both a thoughtcrime and a sexcrime all at once.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
