Children’s book outrages parents — themorningcall.com
Storytime ceased abruptly when the picture book Eileen Issa was reading her 2 1/2-year-old son surprisingly ended with two men marrying and smooching.
The tale about a disgruntled queen who demanded that her son marry a princess looked like the average children’s book to the mother of two when she scooped it up along with about nine others at the Lower Macungie Library. She had no idea the book has been the subject of a federal lawsuit and controversy in other parts of the country. Since that day, Issa and her husband, Jeff, have demanded that the library take it out of circulation. The book will remain on the shelf despite the Issas’ complaints and about 40 signatures they’ve gathered from residents who agree. The library’s board of directors on Thursday denied the couple’s request for the second time and the township supervisors, who appoint the library directors, have chosen not to overrule the decision.
”I just want kids to enjoy their innocence and their time of growing up,” Jeff Issa said, explaining his persistence. ”Let them be kids and not worry about homosexuality, race, religion. Just let them live freely as kids.” ”King & King” is in the children’s corner of the library. The only mention of its homosexual content is a small reference on the copyright page. The library’s computer system also notes the classification.
I have mixed feelings about this, banning this book is one thing, but seriously, should it be in the children’s section of the library?
I think you’re suffering a core meltdown, Fusionista.
All your talk about intolerance towards homosexuals, bombing ragheads back to the cave, and lynch mobs comes from somewhere, but it sure as shit isn’t from anything I have posted. Your own inner demons, perhaps?
One thing no one has ever called me (or my children) is intolerant of homos, ragheads, people of other races, or anyone else who is different from me.
If you think marking a book about a homosexual couple as such is going to lead to a resurgence of the KKK and an explosion in hate crime, you better lay off the bong. As I have said (a number of times, in fact, but you don’t seem to be paying attention in your name-calling feeding frenzy), I have no problem with the book. If I had six-year-old kids, I might take it out of the library. My only comment was that a book about queer royalty is somewhat of a hot potato to be putting alongside Dr. Seuss and Maurice Sendak. Not everyone wants to discuss homosexuality with their toddlers, and they should be forewarned when they’re taking kiddie books out of the library.
Personally, I think the parents are tight-asses (although I’ll restate my opinion that Mom gives a hell of a blow job), and if they’re that het up about what their kids read, they should pre-read the books they allow them to have. I wouldn’t be surprised if they homeschool, too.
#49 – MikeN,
Thanks for that voice of reason. It does indeed remind us that teaching kids use of the N word is worse than teaching them about homosexuality.
I would personally not ban either book. But, if it’s about what is appropriate for various age groups, yes, perhaps this book is for a younger age group than Huck Finn.
However, I’m betting you were trying to make the opposite point.
Mr. Mustard,
I think you may be getting a bit overly heated in this particular debate. It’s a valid point that stating that they were kissing is not exactly like explaining anal sex. And, yes, I think that explaining the details of sexual acts may not be appropriate for most 6 year olds.
Personally, mom got me a book when I asked where babies came from that explained things at a perfectly acceptable level for a child. I imagine the same could be done for other questions about sexuality. A book that explains that some people like members of their own sex, without explaining the details should be fine for most children. I can’t say what age this would be appropriate for, not being a parent.
But, I think we’re just debating about the particular age group here, not really whether it is OK to tell kids that just as some people are left handed, some people like members of the same sex. Nothing is wrong with either and kids should know that at some age to prevent a lot of pain in society.
What do you think would be the right age? 18? Isn’t that a little late? Shouldn’t the message come through by the time they are discovering their own sexuality at the least?
This is where I do find “the internets” a challenging forum to do more in-depth debates. It’s easy to misunderstand or inflate/conflate others’ opinions.
To Mr. Mustard’s defense, according to his words he doesn’t appear to be against people being gay, or having books about gays.
Mr. Mustard’s main argument seems to be (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that books about gays, no matter how innocuous, should not belong in the children’s section of libraries/bookstores because the very subject is so unusual that it will inevitably lead to discussions about sex.
And most of us would agree that books and discussions about sex are not appropriate for young kids.
However MM, where we disagree is your assertion that talking about gay couples = talking about sex. Just because it’s less common doesn’t make it so, and comparing this to the Clinton/Lewisky situation, while interesting, doesn’t seem to be the best analogy. The fundamental event in that situation was sex. Gay couples is about quite a lot of things: love, commitment, etc. and yes sex, but you can certainly talk about the other aspects w/o talking about sex.
I’m interested in other people’s opinions about this, and am willing to accept we may end up in a “agree to disagree” situation.
Last thought: I think books about two gay people marrying, by itself, is fine in a children’s section of a library. And if this book was about an interracial straight couple marrying, I don’t think we’d be having as involved a debate about this.
>>Mr. Mustard’s main argument seems to be (and
>>correct me if I’m wrong) is that books about
>>gays, no matter how innocuous, should not belong
>>in the children’s section of
>>libraries/bookstores because the very subject is
>>so unusual that it will inevitably lead to
>>discussions about sex.
Yer half right, Mr. Kyu. I think they should be identified as containing reference to “non-traditional sexual coupling”, so people could decide for themselves whether or not they want to take the book out. (And if you don’t think kissing leads to sex, even in the minds of 6-year-olds, you’ve never had a 6-year-old.) We label music with parental advisories for containing the word “fuck”.
And the interracial couple analogy doesn’t cut the mustard. Men are more different from women than whites are from blacks. It’s one thing for an American prince and a Japanese princess to kiss and live happily ever after; it’s quite another for two princes to do the same thing. As such, it’s a hot potato.
And Scottie, as I have remarked before, you had an exceptionally enightened mother. Most parents do not provide their six-year-olds with books detailing the technology of sexual intercourse.
As to what age would be approriate, I don’t know. As I said, I would have taken the book out of the library if it looked any good and the kids would be interested in it, kissing kings or no. If I had to pick an age, how about “when they’re old enough to go to the library by themselves”?.
Publishing a book of this sort geared towards six-year-olds seems to be further attempts by a discriminated-against minority to hammer their agenda into every aspect of our lives. I’m all for non-discrimination based on sexual preference, but gimme a fucking break. There are plenty of good causes around, but not all of them belong in toddlers’ books. How about exposing the genocide in Sudan? Conflict in the Middle East (Israelis and Palestinians could each write their own book)? Factory farming? Police corruption? Human slavery and trafficking in underage sex workers? The plight of Katrina survivors? The imbecile in the White House?
Sometimes kids’ books should just be kids’ books, and not an attempt to slip yet another political agenda in under the guise of fairy tales.
Ok, MM made his point, a bit over-whelmingly eloquent but, I declare him the winner and not just because he got the last word,(mine doesn’t count). I’d just like to point out that his continued use of off-topic expressions of disgust with the current political circumstance is a little like chumming, even though I believe he’s not afraid of the sharks and I completely agree with his sentiments, I still believe he can do better… just my two sense worth.
Yep. A book for 6-y-os promoting homosexuality is age-inappropriate, and as such, would appear to be propaganda, trying to instill uncritical acceptance of a phenomenon that they’re not yet equipped to comprehend.
It’s one thing to encourage children to be open-minded and accepting of others’ differences, but another thing entirely to brainwash them into accepting something they know nothing about. Instruction in tolerance is to be provided by logically supportable arguments that the learner can grasp. Saying, “you must be tolerant because we say so” is not learning to be open-minded, it’s being indoctrinated into an ideology, which is how you create Klanners and suicide bombers, not humane, thinking citizens.
#66 – MM,
If I had to pick an age, how about “when they’re old enough to go to the library by themselves”?
Hmm… Interesting suggestion. However, I was under the impression that these days kids aren’t getting any unsupervised time anymore. This is information from a parent, not from my own brain, since I have no kids.
I was under the impression that leaving children unsupervised was a criminal act these days and that parents no longer tell their kids, ‘go out and play.’ Perhaps this is a regional thing. I don’t know.
Seriously though, the days of latchkey 8 year olds is certainly over. At what age are children allowed to take a walk by themselves to the library or anywhere else? Seems to me that by that age, sexuality is already discovered and, for those whose sexuality is different, therapy may already be necessary and the harassment by other children already apparent.
My best friend growing up was gay. By 6th grade, both of us were already being called bundles of sticks. How would you propose stopping this sort of thing? Bert and Ernie obviously weren’t enough in my day. Purple teletubbies probably won’t do it either. I think, at some reasonable age, maybe 8, maybe 10, kids can be exposed to the concept of couples that are same sex.
Probably most, at least in many areas of the country, already have been by that age. What if we left out the kissing and just showed a couple of men or a couple of women living a happy life together? Raising children? In short, a story with a happy ending about a same sex couple does not hurt anyone. I don’t agree that this leads to a detailed conversation about sex. The answer, as suggested above, could just be that they love each other, as Uncle Ben suggested in post #39.
If you’re going to complain about what kids are exposed to, wouldn’t guns, GI Joe, and toy Hummers top the list, well ahead of anything that discusses the beauty of people in love?
#68 – Katberos,
Exactly how do you see teaching tolerance creating the klan members of tomorrow? I think your argument may be a bit weak on this point.
What the pro-gay people on this site don’t realize is that the anti-gay people don’t see this as a simple book where “man marries woman” or “man marries man”. We might read this to our kids and not even pause when we hit the last page and he marries another King. For the anti-gay crowd however, it raises a lot of uncomfortable questions because now the parents have to explain to their child why homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals are evil.
#68 Three-Headed Cat writes, “A book for 6-y-os promoting homosexuality is age-inappropriate, and as such, would appear to be propaganda…”
I would disagree with your characterization that this qualifies as “promoting” homosexuality. I haven’t read the book, but from the descriptions, it seems to be merely depicting a same-gender union, including a kiss, with no mention of anything else. Even those who oppose this book don’t seem to be claiming that it actually promotes or advocates homosexuality. However, I’m sure that in the context of the story, it was clear that this was the right path for “King & King,” just as it often is in real life for as much as 10% of the general population.
And Mister Mustard, I’m surprised you’re still participating in this discussion. The coroner recorded your time of death as 11:28 am yesterday (#50) when you jumped over the cliff, saying…..
“Stories about princes kissing princesses ARE a metaphor for doing it doggy style (or the position of your choice); it’s just that heterosexual couples (and their resulting sex) are so commonplace that it doesn’t raise any questions on the part of pre-schoolers regarding the technical details of what follows the kiss.”
I have to ask, Mister Mustard, did you have doors and walls in your house when you were raising your daughters? I realize I led a very sheltered life as a child, but you seem to assume that pre-schoolers have far greater sexual understanding than I believe is common. Without fairly specific knowledge of what a man and a woman do in bed, besides kissing and sleeping, children won’t have any questions at all regarding the “technical details” of same-gender unions. They simply won’t ask how homosexual unions might differ from heterosexual coupling, or what adjustments are made when anatomically similar naughty bits come together.
And now, maybe a bit of humor that most parents can relate to….. I think this book should be kept in a very special section of the library labeled “Books you MUST NOT EVER READ!” That should ensure a fairly wide audience 😉
#71, Ascii King,
For the anti-gay crowd however, it raises a lot of uncomfortable questions because now the parents have to explain to their child why homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals are evil.
That is the whole point of the book !!! Homosexuality is not evil. It is only a sin to those who believe in fairy tales themselves.
Homosexuality is normal. It is not deviant. It is not a disease. It is not a “condition” or “syndrome”. A book like this is to promote tolerance of those around them. If young children are taught that certain others, be they a different race, religion, nationality, or eye color, are worth less or unacceptable, they will grow to continue to embrace those ideals as adults. It is a lot easier to teach tolerance and acceptance of EVERYONE when the child is young then it is to change their behavior as an adult.
Anti-gay is just another form of bigotry.
>>I was under the impression that leaving
>>children unsupervised was a criminal act
>>these days and that parents no longer tell
>>their kids, ‘go out and play.’
I’m sure that’s the case in Noo Yawk Schitty, Scottie. I think Rudy passed that law, while he was trying to shut down the Live Nude Girls businesses in Time Square.
>>In short, a story with a happy ending about
>>a same sex couple does not hurt anyone.
I didn’t say it did. Neither would a story about Holocaust survivors going on to become Special Forces operatives in the Israeli army and fighting the Palestinians, or a sexually abused child growing up to become a prosecutor, or victims of the Sudanese genocide overthrowing the Jinjaweed murderers, or a tale about the role of the military-industrial complex in global warming and opression of 3rd world countries.
However, it gets tiresome to have political agendas inserted into every aspect of daily living, from the nightly news to children’s fairy tales. Could we back off the 24/7 indoctrination for just a moment now and then?
And make no mistake about it; this is political indoctrination. And while you may think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, and I may think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, not EVERYONE thinks homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. And they are entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to behave in a discriminatory manner, but they are entitled to think whatever the wish. And to teach their children to read without sub- (and supra-) liminal political messages being inserted in their kids’ learn-to-read books. How would you like a book that depicted benevolent and loveable homophobes refusing employment or promotion to a gay person? Happy KKK members at a picnic, lampooning the watermelon-seed-spitting of their most recent lynchee? Avuncular gropers and sexual harassers thriving and living happily as business magnates? Or would that form of indoctrination be wrong, because you don’t agree with the underlying principles?
>>wouldn’t guns, GI Joe, and toy Hummers top
>>the list, well ahead of anything that
>>discusses the beauty of people in love?
Guns and GI Joe are cool:
http://tinyurl.com/2s8wey
Hummers would cross the line, though. Except for the ones driven by GI Joe in his quest to spread democracy to the world, those things should be banned.
I stand in solidarity with my right honourable monocranial colleague, Sir Mustard.
Propaganda is not made acceptable by promoting things one agrees with – it’s still propaganda. Six-year-olds are not yet equipped to consider the issue on it’s merits, therefore presenting one side – either side – to them amounts to an attempt to indoctrinate, not teach.
Would you at least consider the possibility that purposely and actively excluding depictions of minority groups within society, in this case homosexuals, might also constitute an attempt to indoctrinate or propagandize?
It’s one thing if no interesting stories are available for inclusion in that bastion of diversity we call a “library,” but to actively exclude those stories for the specific reason that the protagonists are gay could easily be seen as agenda-driven. Agendas are so cheap these days that everyone seems to have one.
>>Would you at least consider the possibility
>>that purposely and actively excluding
>>depictions of minority groups within society
Is that kind of like “not collecting stamps is a hobby”? Or not believing in unicorns is a religion?
Har.
And unlike Atheists (who make a conscious, concerted decision in their belief that God does not exist), I seriously doubt many authors sit down at the typewriter, thinking “I’m going to write a book, but damn…I’m not writing one about homos!!”.
I’m not sure who you’re talking about, wanting to exclude any books from the library. You certainly aren’t talking about me. All I would like is for the books to be identified as being what they are.
#6 – They read cartoonish, colored-with-crayons distillations of the Bible…
That’s all Bibles in English.
#77… “I’m not sure who you’re talking about, wanting to exclude any books from the library.”
Mister Mustard, most specifically I was referring to Jeff and Eileen Issa, who along with about 40 signers to their petition, want this book taken out of their local library’s circulation, saying ”Let them be kids and not worry about homosexuality, race, religion.”
Their statement appears to advocate actively suppressing reading material that mentions sexual, racial, or religious diversity. It would seem that they want to live in a very small world for as long as possible, and I’m surprised they even dared venturing forth unto the perilous and risky realm of the library.
#75 – Katberos,
So, clearly you would support any measures to avoid having children come in contact with religion inadvertently and against parental will as well, right? Department store Santas, publicly displayed Christmas trees and menorahs, the Easter bunny, and all the rest?
What about indoctrination into the country’s real religion, consumerism? Would you also stop all advertising aimed at children?
#77 – MM,
I seriously doubt many authors sit down at the typewriter, thinking “I’m going to write a book, but damn…I’m not writing one about homos!!”.
Perhaps, but, I think you may find many publishers and bookstores thinking that they aren’t going to publish any book about homos or sell it in their stores. Even if just to avoid the controversy that this blog topic barely hints at, many stores would probably not stock this book.
I’m not sure who you’re talking about, wanting to exclude any books from the library. You certainly aren’t talking about me. All I would like is for the books to be identified as being what they are.
That’s fine. I assume you will do the same for the Bible, Huck Finn, and many others. I assume you support some form of rating system, hopefully better than the MPAA one, correct?
But, seriously, do you really see a fundamental difference between a book depicting kissing based on who is kissing whom? Shouldn’t the act of kissing be equal regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved?
If not, seriously, why not? Because parents have a right to propagate hatred and bigotry in their children? Are you not worried about that type of indoctrination? Do you believe parents should be able to teach their children whatever they want in all cases? Why require schooling at all then? Why have standards? Shouldn’t creationists be able to raise their children without the horrific influence of real science? Is there no obligation to bring children into the world with some basic level of knowledge and morals?
I’m actually a bit surprised that you think it is OK for parents to indoctrinate their children in hatred and bigotry. These are learned behaviors. Kids don’t genetically just hate homosexuals. They have to be taught such bunk from corrupt and despicable sources. They must be taught that it is sinful and evil.
Do you not care for the percentage of children that will themselves grow up to hate their own sexuality and thus become violent or self-destructive? Do you not think it is damaging to the psyche of the child to put indoctrinate them into this culture of hate dividing him/her from potential friends and potentially causing severe self-loathing?
Isn’t this sort of thing child abuse?
So, perhaps it is not OK for a parent to teach hate to their children as you suggest. Perhaps it is not simply a matter of opinion whether homosexuality is OK. Perhaps teaching such hatred has the potential to cause real and severe damage to a growing mind.
Nice try, here:
“Their statement appears to advocate actively suppressing reading material that mentions sexual, racial, or religious diversity.”
No, their statement appears to advocate not indoctrinating 6-year-old children by means of deliberately presenting to them one side in a social controversy that they are totally unequipped to comprehend.
And that’s a very, very big difference.
#81 – Katberos,
Are you saying that all of the books that show couples of men and women together show at least one same sex couple? I doubt it. So, how is that less one-sided? I fail to see your very, very big difference. Sorry.
>>Perhaps, but, I think you may find many
>>publishers and bookstores thinking that
>>they aren’t going to publish any book
>>about homos or sell it in their stores.
I dunno about that, Scottie. Seems to me folks will publish just about anything, and bookstores will carry it. For a couple of other books I don’t think should be in the toddler section of the public library, try:
http://tinyurl.com/3a6j2d
or for the distaff approach:
http://tinyurl.com/2wqzjk
Both available with free shipping from amazon dot com, and I’ve seen them both in my local Barnes & Noble.
>>That’s fine. I assume you will do the
>>same for the Bible, Huck Finn
That would be optional. Anyone who takes out the Bible or Huck Finn without knowing what they’re getting probably deserves to be surprised.
>>I’m actually a bit surprised that you think
>>it is OK for parents to indoctrinate their
>>children in hatred and bigotry.
Oh, Scottie. Scottie, Scottie, Scottie. How is it that all the former advocates of “the absence of something is nothing” (e.g., Atheism is not a religion) now all of a sudden jump on the “If you don’t teach your kids about homos by the time they’re out of diapers, you’re making a conscious decision to indoctrinate children in hatred and bigotry” bandwagon?
Even assholes like Jeff & Eileen Issa (I still maintain that Eileen could give a hell of a blow job) aren’t advocation hatread and bigotry (at least not in public). Their position (the most extreme I’ve heard wrt this issue, and one that I do not support) is that homo books are not suitable for inclusion in the kiddie section of the public library. I would take that one step less far, and say they should be identified, for the benefit of parents who might wish to wait until their children are 8 or 9 before bringing up homosexuality, bisexuality, polygamy, and all the other non-traditional forms of sexual coupling (and don’t give me that “love” nonsense; I love my mother, but that’s not the way the two kings love each other – you know it, I know it, and the kids know it).
>>Do you not care for the percentage of
>>children that will themselves grow up to hate
>>their own sexuality and thus become violent
>>or self-destructive?
Jesus H. Christ, Scottie. Maybe you should buy some of that valium the DU spammer keeps advertising as being available “onlune”. If parents have a kid who knows he or she is gay at the age of six, I suggest there are more effective ways of instilling self-worth and healthy sexual behaviors (I’m talking about safe sex, not deprogramming them, in case you were about to jump on me for that) than reading them fucking fairy tales. And if fairy tales is the way they want to go, the book is readily available. Even if the Blow-Job Queen and her hubby succeed in their efforts to impose censorship on the library, the King book can be easily gotten overnight by ordering “onlune”.
You’re reading waaaaaay too much hatemongering, xenophobia, gay bashing, hate crimes, self-loathing, destructive and criminal behaviors into what may well be nothing more than the parents’ wish to discuss weighty topics like sexual preference until AFTER Santa has brought the toddler his or her two front teeth for Christmas.
There’s a time and a place for everything, Scottie. And not all parents think the time for discussion of sexuality variants is six years of age.
#83 – MM,
Actually, I was making reference to a specific paragraph in your post #74 that I should have quoted before.
And make no mistake about it; this is political indoctrination. And while you may think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, and I may think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, not EVERYONE thinks homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. And they are entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to behave in a discriminatory manner, but they are entitled to think whatever the wish. And to teach their children to read without sub- (and supra-) liminal political messages being inserted in their kids’ learn-to-read books. How would you like a book that depicted benevolent and loveable homophobes refusing employment or promotion to a gay person? Happy KKK members at a picnic, lampooning the watermelon-seed-spitting of their most recent lynchee? Avuncular gropers and sexual harassers thriving and living happily as business magnates? Or would that form of indoctrination be wrong, because you don’t agree with the underlying principles?
The parents may be entitled to their opinion about homosexuality. They are also entitled to bigoted opinions about other groups. Is it OK for them to teach this to their children? I don’t know. It turns my stomach to think about the gay and lesbian children that will have severe emotional problems due to the upbringing you seem to allow in the above quote.
As for the two book links in post 83, did you actually find them in the children’s section of your bookstore? Or, are you just trying to overstate your case severely for shock value?
Jesus H. Christ, Scottie. Maybe you should buy some of that valium the DU spammer keeps advertising as being available “onlune”. If parents have a kid who knows he or she is gay at the age of six … blah blah blah … not all parents think the time for discussion of sexuality variants is six years of age.
When did I ever say 6 was the age? I merely maintain that it is healthy for children to know about and respect homosexuality before they themselves learn about their own sexuality. I don’t know what that age is, not being a parent myself.
>>Is it OK for them to teach this to
>>their children? I don’t know.
Well, personally, I don’t think it’s OK. There’s not much that can be done about it, though.
You’re still making quite a leap from “gee, I can’t find King & King at my public library” (or, according to my scheme, “I can find it, but it’s labelled to indicate what’s inside”) to teaching disrespect, hatred, and violence against anyone at all different from yourself.
>>did you actually find them in the
>>children’s section of your bookstore
No, of course I didn’t find those books in the children’s section. I never claimed I did. They were in the gender politics or sexuality section. My point in posting those links was to show that even books the majority of rank-and-filers would find offensive can be easily acquired in the most mainstream of literary outlets. I would say that in this day and age there’s precious little that authors won’t write, publishers won’t publish, and booksellers won’t sell. We’re certainly in no danger of having homo fairy tales censored by publishers and bookstores. And I doubt we’re really in any danger of having them censored by the library; Blow Job Queen’s bitching notwithstanding. Obviously the library itself had no qualms about the book. I bet if they do anything besides tell the couple to go get stuffed, they will put a “parental advisory” sticker on it, which will probably quadruple the number of people who check the book out.
And it all comes back to “is the absence of something nothing, or is it something?”. In my local branch library (not the main one), there are no books about Zoroastrianism (I looked). Is the library teaching religious hatred and indoctrinating patrons into thinking that Zoroastrians are evil? They also don’t have (or didn’t, six months ago) any books on Vista. Are they Luddites, promoting technological ignorance?
I’ll bet the list of books they do NOT have at any East Bumfuck library like the Lower Macungie one (and Lower Macungie IS East Bumfuck; it’s got a population of about 15,000, and the closest “city” is crumbling rust-belt Allentown, PA) is longer than your arm. Are they actively promoting hatred towards every topic they don’t have books on the shelf about?
If you want to legislate thought, and the way parents raise their children, you’re going to have to go a lot further than demanding that unmarked homo fairy tales be allowed on the shelves at the library.
#81, I fail to see the magnitude of difference that you perceive, Three-Headed Cat.
Jeff Issa’s plea to “let them be kids and not worry about homosexuality, race, religion” shows an intentional parallel between those characteristics, suggesting he would be similarly inclined to suppress stories whose protagonists exhibit controversial aspects of race or religion as well, in the same way the Issas want to avoid this story.
It sounds like your complaint that this book is “deliberately presenting to them one side in a social controversy” could easily be remedied if the book included a scene with an angry mob of torch-carrying villagers who storm the castle, showing the little kiddies the other side of this social controversy. Obviously, this omits your additional phrasing “that they are totally unequipped to comprehend,” but I don’t see the harm in showing that these people exist, just as they probably exist in the Issas’ own neighborhood. These groups have been marginalized for too long, and using gay people, interracial couples, or even non-Christians as protagonists in a children’s story shouldn’t require first schooling those children in the reasons why some people find their behavior sinful or unnatural.
With your phrase “totally unequipped to comprehend,” it really sounds like you’re saying that kids shouldn’t read or hear stories with gay characters until they are emotionally or intellectually equipped with enough (mis)information to condemn them, if so inclined. That would seem to be the only “other side” of this social controversy.
I was starting to think you were an idiot, Mister Mustard until this argument
“How would you like a book that depicted benevolent and loveable homophobes refusing employment or promotion to a gay person? Happy KKK members at a picnic, lampooning the watermelon-seed-spitting of their most recent lynchee?”
Now I am forced to agree with you that those books would piss me off and would seem inappropriate for a 6 year old. I guess I could agree that since we are not all in agreement (or even close), about homosexuality, then presenting it without warning is indoctrinating.
I think a simple sticker that said “Caution! Hot man on man action inside.” would be enough. Seriously, though,how would you label it so that it didn’t seem discriminatory?
>>since we are not all in agreement (or
>>even close), about homosexuality
We don’t? What’s your opinion on homosexuality? What do you think my position is on homosexuality?
>>how would you label it so that it didn’t
>>seem discriminatory?
“Parental advisory”. Or move it to a different section (“Books parents my want to take out for their children”).
#88. Its simple, Mustards right, everybody else is wrong. Ok three headed cat is right, but then Fusion has a good point….Oh fuck, who cares?
We should burn this book and the author with it because the best way to protect the kids is to let them get a cell phone as soon as they can grab it, buy them iPods so they stop reading books that will give them non christian thoughts such as that women are capable or achieving the same academic level of a man or that black people can go to heaven.
Sarcasm aside MM I think you’re too old for the times.
#88
“What do you think my position is on homosexuality?”
That you’re a two faced hipocrite.
>>That you’re a two faced hipocrite.
Shut up, ya horny bastard.