Uncle Jamie's Disgrace
Recently I stumbled upon a very disturbing blog entry written by a librarian trying to justify the placement of homosexual propaganda in the children's section of the library.
At issue is the disgraceful book entitled Uncle Bobby's Wedding. A young mother using the library objected to the book on the grounds that "the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage and is targeted toward the 2-7 year old age group." This is clearly the case. But the librarian dismissed the woman's objections in his 874 page letter (apparently believing that more words equals more wisdom).
The book is pure indoctrination. Amazon reviews indicate that the book is about a little guinea pig girl named Chloe whose uncle is "marrying" another man. What could possibly be the problem, you say? The problem is that Chloe has doesn't want to relinquish Uncle Bobby's attention to his "partner" Jamie. But in the end - and this is a direct quote from an Amazon review - "having two uncles turns out to be a fine idea", and Chloe "thinks Uncle Bobby's wedding was the best ever".
Well I'm sorry to interrupt the self-congratulatory backslapping, but having your uncle "marry" a man is not a fine idea. It is wrong. Despite what some 60 year old hippy librarian tells you, men are supposed to marry women.
But here's the worst part: The librarian, in his 917 page response, admits that the book is propaganda!:
At issue is the disgraceful book entitled Uncle Bobby's Wedding. A young mother using the library objected to the book on the grounds that "the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage and is targeted toward the 2-7 year old age group." This is clearly the case. But the librarian dismissed the woman's objections in his 874 page letter (apparently believing that more words equals more wisdom).
The book is pure indoctrination. Amazon reviews indicate that the book is about a little guinea pig girl named Chloe whose uncle is "marrying" another man. What could possibly be the problem, you say? The problem is that Chloe has doesn't want to relinquish Uncle Bobby's attention to his "partner" Jamie. But in the end - and this is a direct quote from an Amazon review - "having two uncles turns out to be a fine idea", and Chloe "thinks Uncle Bobby's wedding was the best ever".Well I'm sorry to interrupt the self-congratulatory backslapping, but having your uncle "marry" a man is not a fine idea. It is wrong. Despite what some 60 year old hippy librarian tells you, men are supposed to marry women.
But here's the worst part: The librarian, in his 917 page response, admits that the book is propaganda!:
First, you believe that "the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage and is targeted toward the 2-7 year old age group."So, given that, on what planet is it acceptable to have the book in the children's section of a public library? It is positively alarming that the people who make decisions about what materials children are exposed to don't have the sense to make those decisions!
...
I think you're right that the purpose of the book is to show a central event, the wedding of two male characters, as no big thing
...
yes, Sarah Brannen [the author] clearly was trying to portray gay marriage as normal
posted by Lou franklin at 9:32 AM
206 Comments:
Thanks, Lou, for laying out your comments at more length on your own blog. But I still don't see any actual arguments to respond to.
Yes, someone objected to the book because it portrayed a view that person did not share. You disagree with it, too. And you find the fact that some thoughtful people are perfectly willing to accept homosexual marriage as morally and legally acceptable "disturbing." OK, you're disturbed.
But it is certainly the case that many people do accept it, and do not regard it as "wrong." And it is also the case that such marriages have been found, in at least some states, for now, legal.
You declare that the book is "indoctrination," a loaded word meaning what exactly? That it presents and advocates for a view? There's nothing unusual about that. You don't want books in the library that have perspectives you don't agree with? Isn't that a little heavy-handed?
The topic of gay marriage is not settled in our society; it is being discussed in our churches, in our courts, and in our families. You're entitled to your view, and to express your moral outrage. And other authors are entitled to express their own opinions, and books from both perspectives are going to wind up at libraries. That's our job.
But just hollering at people that it's wrong, and resorting to snide name-calling, really isn't much of a contribution to the debate.
The problem, of course, with stating that a book is "wrong," and should not be allowed in the public library is this - someone else might have a problem with books that YOU think are just fine and dandy.
A public library provides material of interest for the entire community - not just those who support your own views and opinions.
This is the reason why public libraries are so quick to dismiss the "I pay taxes, and I don't want my money to go towards purchasing this type of filth" response to such material. Because, after all, homosexuals pay taxes too. And I bet if you checked, there would be much more material supporting your own view than that of the gay man or lesbian.
In truth, public libraries probably need to purchase MORE materials like this, in order to justify the spending of tax dollars from the homosexual community.
So look for more gay and lesbian themed books at your library, courtesy of your local librarian!
Thanks, Lou, for laying out your comments at more length on your own blog.
You're welcome
A public library provides material of interest for the entire community - not just those who support your own views and opinions.
The entire community? How about Klansmen? Got any children's books for them? How about neo-Nazis. No? What about pedophiles? Heroin addicts? Axe murderers? Excuse me, can you direct me to some children's books about the joys of Devil Worship? What? You don't have any?!?
No, a public library does not provide material of interest for the entire community. Nor should they.
The problem, of course, with stating that a book is "wrong," and should not be allowed in the public library is...
This gets to the very heart of the issue. There is such a thing as right and wrong, but it takes wisdom to discern the difference between the two. That wisdom is sorely lacking here.
Hustler Magazine is not available in the children's section because making it available to children would be wrong.
This librarian is obviously very educated, and has all of the facts right in front of him, so what is preventing him from making a rational decision? How is it that he can conclude "I still don't see any actual arguments to respond to"?
The answer is that he lacks judgment; He simply doesn't know right from wrong. I don't mean to offend, but it is the truth. Allowing that book in the children's section of a library is absolutely, 100%, and unequivocally wrong.
*Why* do you think it's wrong?
My niece and nephews know I am married to my male partner and in fact two of them were at the wedding (the other two were unborn).
As a gay uncle they see my relationship with my partner in the same way they see their parent's marriage--as two people who love each other. They are learning that "love" and "committment" is important whether you are gay or straight.
I am proud to be a gay uncle and now to have this book to share with them.
The only thing that is wrong about the book is the hate, prejudice and righteousness of others who believe that their way is the only way!
Devil worship? The Klan? pedophilia? Axe murderers?
That's a bit of a reach when one is discussing an act between two consenting adults - that harms no one. Your comparisons, however, are ridiculously over the top. Therefore, I will decline from commenting further.
As for Hustler - I would gladly make it available to children if the law allowed it.
*Why* do you think it's wrong?
Because it is propaganda. Even Jamie concedes that the purpose of the book is to portray gay marriage as normal.
As a gay uncle they see my relationship with my partner in the same way they see their parent's marriage--as two people who love each other.
They are wrong. Your relationship is not the same as their parent's marriage. I hope you and your "partner" are enjoying your lives together, but that ain't marriage. Your relationship may seem special to you, but it is not the same relationship that Ozzie and Harriet had. Why must we all pretend that it is? Many people who are not married "love each other".
I will decline from commenting further.
You do that. Who asked you to comment the first time?
As for Hustler - I would gladly make it available to children if the law allowed it.
Hey Jamie, do you have any job openings? This guy would fit right in.
By that definition, the Bible is also propaganda. Should that not be available for children to read in libraries?
Following up on my definition comment. Propaganda is defined as information spread to do harm. You've yet to say how gay marriage does harm.
To Lou Frankin:
Who are you to tell me what my marriage to my partner is like?
How do you know what my life is like?
What is that based on?
For me, marriage is a serious committment to my husband who I have dedicated my life to care for, love, be sexual with and to be loyal to.
My partner and myself we married under reform Judaism and legally in Massachusetts.
Please don't tell me that what I have is not marriage when you don't even know me.
I am a marriage therapist and help hundreds of straight and gay couples make their marriages work.
Love is more than what is needed for marriage and that is something we agree on.
I just wish that people like you who think they know about gays and marriage would spend some time with some long-term gay couples and be informed and not anecdotal thoughts for some snippets of a reality show or Jerry Falwell clip of a gay pride parade.
Joe Kort
Propaganda is a deliberate attempt to shape perceptions or manipulate cognitions to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. Tricking 6 year-olds into supporting gay marriage by showing them cute little guinea pigs is dishonest. You know that.
Who are you to tell me what my marriage to my partner is like?
I didn't tell you; You told me. You said that you are two males. Two males is different from a male and a female. It isn't marriage. Period.
I am a marriage therapist
Then it may be a good idea to find out what marriage is.
Teaching children to understand their family structure in a healthy and supportive manner is a good thing.
It's no different than teaching a child anything else they need to grow up happy and healthy.
I'm still waiting to hear why you think there's something wrong with gay marriage, which seems to be at the root of the matter. I can't see any downside to it, myself. I keep hearing bigots talk about how horrible it is, but I've yet to hear any logical argument against it.
Why do you assume that those who disagree with you are "bigots"? Does that really make sense to you?
I've yet to hear any logical argument against it.
Perhaps your definition of "logical" is the problem.
For the history of this country, marriage has meant the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. When a young man proposes marriage to a young woman it is a very special thing. He is committing himself to her for life and promising to put her above all others and raise children together as father and mother. It is a very special moment and forms the nucleus of society.
Sure other living arrangements are special in their own way. Father and son. Sister and sister. Boy and his dog. "Partner" and "partner". But all of those arrangements are different from marriage. To call those things marriage is to cheapen marriage.
Marriage is the very special union of one man and one woman. It is ordained by God. Two homosexuals living together is not marriage, and never will be.
Religious marriage is ordained by god, but no one's saying a thing about requiring religions to accept same sex marriage. Civil marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with economics, legal standing and a host of other things in the civil arena. We still call it marriage. An opposite sex couple doesn't need religious assistance to marry. It's a non-issue.
As for logic, it means what it means. Saying same sex marriage is wrong for all because your religion says so isn't logical. It says it's wrong for you and for anyone who believes as you do. If you don't like same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Just don't expect everyone else to follow *your* religious proscriptions. That's the basis of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. (I live in America, and I get the feeling you do, too. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
How does same sex marriage "cheapen" marriage? It sounds like the same rhetoric that used to say blacks and whites couldn't marry. Which brings up your other point: just because something has 'always been that way' is no reason to continue it when it's discovered to be wrong. Slavery used to be considered a time honored tradition in this country. Should we not have ended it? Tradition isn't a reason, it's an excuse.
I call a bigot when I see one and, frankly, your arguments are bigoted, if you intend them to be or not. Replace 'interracial' with 'same sex' and you'll see what I mean. It's the same thing. This is a basic matter of human rights, nothing less.
Again, what *logical* argument is there for disallowing same sex marriage?
It sounds like the same rhetoric that used to say blacks and whites couldn't marry.
How so? A black woman can marry a white man because they meet the criteria for marriage: they are one man and one woman. In what way is that the "same" as two homosexuals?
Religious marriage is ordained by god, but no one's saying a thing about requiring religions to accept same sex marriage. Civil marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with economics, legal standing and a host of other things in the civil arena. We still call it marriage.
You may not call it marriage. It is not marriage, regardless of the adjective you stick in front of it. It is a civil union. So have a civil union and enjoy your life. Many people are offended by your bastardizing the term marriage to mean other things. Why do you feel that your rights are so much more important than theirs?
Saying same sex marriage is wrong for all because your religion says so isn't logical.
Reread my post, my anonymous friend.
Civil marriage already *is* called marriage. My husband and I (I'm a woman, btw) were married that way a couple of decades ago.
And it used to be illegal for a black man and a white woman to marry. The Supreme Court overruled that, finally in the 60s, I think it was. Loving vs. State of Virginia.
The only people who seem to think their rights are more important than everyone else's are those of you trying to continue to treat a significant segment of the population as second class citizens by denying consenting adults the right to marry.
I have read your post. No where does it give any logical argument for why same sex marriage is "wrong". I'm still waiting for you to offer that argument up.
As for people being "offended" by it, I'm offended by bigotry, no matter how you dress it up in religious dogma. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't have the right to practice your religion. If it offends me, I have to learn to deal with *that*, just as you and your fellow bigots will have to learn to deal with the fact that this nation is *finally* coming around to treating all its citizens equally under the law.
Civil marriage already *is* called marriage.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. All marriage is ordained by God, including your notions of "religious marriage" and "civil marriage". I don't know anybody who goes around saying "my wife and I have a wonderful civil marriage". Marriage is marriage.
The only people who seem to think their rights are more important than everyone else's are those of you trying to continue to treat a significant segment of the population as second class citizens by denying consenting adults the right to marry.
I'm not sure what part you aren't getting. They don't meet the criteria to marry.
What about polygamists? Why not allow three people to "marry"? They are consenting adults too, aren't they? They can't marry because they don't meet the criteria to marry. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.
I'm offended by bigotry
But where is the bigotry? Homosexuals have never had the right to marry in this country because that's not what marriage is. Now all of a sudden we're all bigots?
Exactly, marriage is marriage, if it's based on religion (your 'ordained by god') or based in civil law (which has nothing to do with god).
I don't know that I have a problem, per se, with group marriage. I've know some group marriages that worked very well, but there would need to be some major work done to accommodate them in civil law with regard to inheritance, custody rights, and so forth. As you say, they are consenting adults.
Your bigotry shows in your desire to continue to treat homosexuals as second class citizens by denying them the legal and financial benefits of marriage simply because they are homosexual. Your inability to come up with even *one* logical reason why same sex marriage is "wrong" simply confirms it.
I have given many logical reasons why same sex marriage is wrong. The most compelling reason is that words have meaning.
I've know some group marriages that worked very well
No you haven't. There is no such thing as a "group marriage". That's not what marriage is.
Would you approve of opening up marriage to children? Why not let a kindergartener marry a 4-year old? What's the matter? Are you a bigot?
Why not let a 50 year old man marry a can of chicken noodle soup? Why not? Your bigotry shows in your desire to continue to treat soup-lovers as second class citizens by denying them the legal and financial benefits of marriage simply because they love soup.
Why not let a teenager marry his grandmother? Too bigoted? Why not let a hamster marry a pitch fork? Can the New York Yankees marry the Cleveland Indians? Why not, you bigot!
Look, the set of things that "marriage" includes is one man and one woman being joined as one. All things outside of that set are not marriage. That is the reality of the situation. If you find that confusing or bigoted or illogical I can't help you.
None of the examples you've given are those of consenting adults. You make yourself look even more foolish than you already have by mentioning them.
Your religiously based view of marriage is limited to 'one man, one woman'. Your religion is welcome to it. That's not everyone else's view. *That* is the point. Your narrow-minded, bigoted point of view (one not even shared by all, or likely even most, Christians) has no business being the basis of laws designed to disenfranchise others.
None of the examples you've given are those of consenting adults.
So the New York Yankees can marry the Cleveland Indians as long as they consent?
Besides, if we are going to redefine marriage to mean something new then why not shoot for the moon? Why be "narrow-minded"? Why restrict it to consenting adults or even humans?
Why not let a penguin marry a footstool? How dare you restrict marriage to consenting adults? Your bigoted point of view has no business being the basis of laws designed to disenfranchise others.
You can't disenfranchise furniture or animals. And baseball teams are organizations. Your inability make reasoned arguments is astounding and possibly an indication that even you realize you don't have a leg to stand on with regard to your opposition to same sex marriage.
And baseball teams are organizations.
And homosexuals aren't heterosexuals.
No, they're people, just like heterosexuals. You seem to like to ignore that fact. There's nothing special about being heterosexual or about being bisexual or about being homosexual. We're all just people and we are *supposed* to all have the same rights under the law in this nation. It's high time we saw to it that we all do, despite the efforts of bigots to try and keep others 'in their place'.
Oy, the "bigots" again. We all have exactly the same rights. I have the right to marry a woman and Liberace has the right to marry a woman. He may waive that right, but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
Neither one of us can marry a man, a toaster oven, or the Oakland Raiders.
Our rights are identical.
Liberace is dead, so he can't marry anyone.
And two men, or two women, *can* marry in California and Massachusetts, not to mention other countries. It will be legal everywhere in the US within a few more years. The only question is how hard bigots are going to work to continue keeping hate codified in our laws.
Your argument boils down to name-calling. You are basically saying if you don't approve of homosexual marriage then you are a bigot. Fear of being called bad names is not a compelling reason to change the most important societal construct known to man. And, by your definition of "bigot", you are a bigot.
You said - Propaganda is a deliberate attempt to shape perceptions or manipulate cognitions to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.
And " follow these commandments and do what God said - or go to hell and burn forever" - is not.... propaganda?
My friend, the bible is propaganda. Pure and simple. As for marriage being ordained by God,I was certainly never told that - I am legally entitled to perform wedding ceremonies, and I'm an atheist.
One last try, then you get to have the last word on your own blog.
I still don't see a rational argument. The closest I can get from you is something like this: "Case A is self-evidently wrong, so Case B is wrong, too."
In your own phrasing, since there no books about ax murderers in the children's area of the library, then there shouldn't be any books about gay marriage, either. You assert that both are "wrong," but you never articulate an objective standard for that; it is known only to you.
In the first place, I bet there ARE books about ax murderers in the children's area. Have you heard the children's jump rope rhyme about Lizzie Borden?
Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother forty whacks.
And when she saw what she had done
She gave her father forty-one.
In the second place, what does ax murdering have to do with gay marriage?
Answer: absolutely nothing. Nada.
So revel in your "absolute, unequivocal, 100%" certainty. I've looked for the logic in your position, and frankly admit that I cannot find it.
That is disturbing indeed.
what does ax murdering have to do with gay marriage?
I was responding to my anonymous friend's suggestion that gay propaganda should be made available to children because "a public library provides material of interest for the entire community". I was pointing out that it is not the library's job to provide books for the entire community.
You assert that both are "wrong," but you never articulate an objective standard for that; it is known only to you.
Why you can't exercise good judgment without the benefit of a formal and objective standards document? If you aren't capable of using common sense to make decisions, I suppose the objective standard is that propaganda should not be allowed. How can you not see that as a rational argument? You are in favor of having propaganda in the children's section of the library?
Wait, the bible is definitely propaganda, using stories to make children believe there is a "god". I know there is no god, and telling children otherwise is wrong. period. Why should this propaganda (trying to say that religion is normal and portray it as something that makes sense!!) in the children's section in the library?
It is positively alarming that the people who make decisions about what materials children are exposed to don't have the sense to make those decisions!
In my opinion, "the people who make decisions about what materials children are exposed to" are the parents. Libraries are not responsible for that.
That's a cop out. By that logic we may as well fill the children's section with porn.
What is the library's job? Which people should be provided library materials of interest and use to them, and which should be denied them?
We live in a pluralistic society. There are a lot of different people who use the library. I've worked as a page and shelved books I'll never read because they're in Russian or Korean languages which I do not and most likely will never be literate in. The library I worked in served it's population, which had a large immigrant population. If we followed your guidance in acquiring materials, these people would not have anything to read in their native tongues as libraries in your opinion should not serve their entire patronage.
"Now all of a sudden we're all bigots?"
no, not all of the sudden. you've been bigots for quite some time. your grasp of grammar and the english language are wanting, as well. perhaps if you'd spent more time reading books, instead of trying to get them banned...
If we followed your guidance in acquiring materials, these people would not have anything to read in their native tongues as libraries in your opinion should not serve their entire patronage.
How would removing propaganda from the children's section of the library make it so "these people would not have anything to read"?
"Libraries should not serve their entire patronage" doesn't mean they should serve none of it. The removal of children's books that advocate lynching black people is a good thing, but it does mean we are not serving the entire community. Some patrons want books like that.
you've been bigots for quite some time.
Homosexual marriage has never existed in the 232 history of the nation. So you conclude that the entire country has been full of bigots for its entire existence. It's only now, with your prudent counsel, that things are starting to turn around. Dumbass.
Lou, I'd like to elaborate on the point that I believe some of your commenters may have been trying to make.
You point out that the public library does not (and should not) contain books about Klansmen, pedophiles, axe murderers, heroin addicts, or neo-Nazis. (At least, it doesn't contain books extolling the viewpoints of these groups of people in the children's section.) This is true, and I think everyone will agree that this is a good thing. So yes, there may be a group in the community that does not have its viewpoint reflected in the library.
The difference, though, is that Klansmen, axe murderers, and neo-Nazis are almost universally condemned (and in many ways, are officially condemned) by our society, and most of the rest of the world. While there may be many people who also condemn gay marriage, the numbers really are not comparable. There are also many people who *support* gay marriage. In California, where I believe Jamie works, the state legislature has (twice, I believe) voted in favour of permitting a man and a woman to marry. The Republican governor of the state has said that he is willing to pass such legislation. The state supreme court has said that under the state constitution, gay couples have the right to marry. A referendum on this issue will be on the ballot in November, and the polling shows that Californians are likely to vote against banning gay marriage.
Given, then, that the state of California seems to believe that homosexual marriage can be permitted, why should librarians in the state ban books that discuss this issue, which many California children are going to confront as their gay relatives get married? (You may believe this is not true marriage, or not marriage as it has been defined in the past, but this is how it is defined in the state now, and this is the issue that children in California will have to deal with.) It makes sense for librarians not to purchase books glorifying axe murderers or pedophiles, because these crimes are condemned by California, and every other state.
You may believe that even if the state permits it, and a majority of California citizens support it, the librarian should use his or her own judgment, and not allow such books because he or she believes it is wrong. The problem with this line of reasoning, though, is that librarians who disagree with you and me might refuse to buy books which we would want! For instance, if my librarian were an atheist (which is his right), he might decide not to buy books on Christianity, because he believes that this promotes a false religion. Would you want such a librarian? I certainly wouldn't! So clearly we don't want librarians to make arbitrary moral judgements of their own; we want them to adhere to community standards, and buy books on religion (for instance) that their Christian members might want to read. If a significant part of the community (in Jamie's case, perhaps even the majority) believes that a certain book is acceptable, then, we can hardly condemn the librarian for accepting such a book. You might reasonably condemn the community for finding such a book acceptable in the first place, but that's another argument entirely.
Note that I'm not attempting to discuss whether or not gay marriage is a good or bad thing; as I have tried to show, this is only indirectly related to the library question.
Just meant to add to my comment above: First, sorry for such a long comment. Second, a couple of minor mistakes: Schwarzenegger has said that he would _sign_ such legislation, not pass it. And in the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph, "it is" should be "they are"; an incomplete edit left a subject/verb disagreement.
Yet another mistake: this time, a factual one. Jamie apparently works in Colorado. However, I imagine that a substantial minority of Douglas County residents might not oppose gay marriage, and as for the larger point, would you agree that a library in California could contain such a book? If your answer to that question is no, then perhaps that is what we should discuss.
Lou: Just out of curiousity, if the book was titled "Uncle Bobby's Civil Union" would you have as much of a problem with it?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position, but to me you seem to be objecting to a homosexual civil union being called a marriage, which you believe has an unwaveringly exclusive definition.
So if civil union replaced the word marriage and say ceremony was used for wedding, would the book then be permitted in the children's section of a library, in your opinion?
If the book were titled "Uncle Bobby's Civil Union" I would have less of a problem with it, but it still wouldn't belong in the children's section of a public library. It would still be propaganda. Tricking 6 year-olds into supporting civil unions by showing them cute little guinea pigs is better than tricking 6 year-olds into supporting gay "marriage" by showing them cute little guinea pigs, I suppose, but it is still not right. Look, live you life however you want, but leave the kids out of it.
There are also many people who *support* gay marriage.
But there are many people who do not, and find it offensive and wrong.
While there may be many people who also condemn gay marriage, the numbers really are not comparable.
And the purpose of this book is to affect those numbers. It is pure propaganda.
Given, then, that the state of California seems to believe that homosexual marriage can be permitted, why should librarians in the state ban books that discuss this issue
Not all of the state of California (and certainly not Colorado) believe that homosexual marriage should be permitted. And I'm not suggesting we "ban books that discuss this issue", but discussing doesn't mean deceiving. The book only "discusses" one side of the coin. If we are going to discuss, let's discuss both sides of the issue honestly as adults - not in the children's section. And not using cute animals who tug at little children's heartstrings in order to brainwash them.
(I'm coming here after reading Jamie's letter and your responses in his comments page. Thanks for your willingness to "talk" to all of us interlopers...)
I don't have anything to contribute to the discussion about whether same-sex marriages should be called "same-sex marriages", especially since, by the criteria of marriage that you laid out, quite a few opposite-sex marriages won't make the cut, either. What your comments are making me think more about, however, is the issue of propaganda. You wrote:
"Propaganda is a deliberate attempt to shape perceptions or manipulate cognitions to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. Tricking 6 year-olds into supporting gay marriage by showing them cute little guinea pigs is dishonest. You know that."
Several earlier commenters have asked you whether the Christian Bible itself isn't a form of propaganda (as you've defined the term). When I was six, my grandparents gave me one of those "Bible Stories for Children" books, with colorful illustrations of some of the best-known tales from the Old and New Testaments. (I still have that book.) Would you say that I was "tricked" into accepting the Ten Commandments because of bright, colorful illustrations in the book? Were my grandparents, and the book, "brainwash[ing]" me? After reading your comments several times now, I wonder whether maybe you're not muddying the waters by framing your objection as though it were to "propaganda" per se rather than to specific content that you dislike. Would you have responded with equal vehemence if the message of the book were that same-sex marriage is, by definition, impossible? Or, for all practical purposes, do you call something "propaganda" only when it presents viewpoints that you reject?
The bigger question to me is whether, in your opinion, there are any books -- or for that matter, any communication of any kind -- that aren't propagandistic in intent.
And that also leads me to wonder whether you're assuming that, say, 6-year-olds are passive sponges. Isn't there a difference between what the author hopes to achieve and what actually happens? Couldn't a reader -- yes, even a six-year-old one -- read something and not be "tricked" into agreeing with the viewpoint(s) expressed in that reading?
Lou,
Re: the word "marriage" and its importance: I married my husband (I'm a male) four years ago in Canada. We specifically went to Canada to be legally MARRIED so that we would be clear to ourselves and those around us that we were getting married. Not partnered, not civilized, or whatever else. Words have meanings and we wanted to be clear about our intent to be a married couple.
In these four years that we continue to live in the US as American citizens, our marriage is not (yet) legally recognized but it IS recognized by everyone I talk to. I have never had anyone question me when I say "my husband...". As you may know dictionaries must be updated frequently to track with current usage. This is one of those times when the culture as a whole has moved forward (it's called "progress").
You may object that my marriage doesn't meet your definition, sorry about that, but from what you wrote of your definition it does (aside from the sex/gender part). Here's what you said: "He is committing himself to her for life and promising to put her above all others and raise children together as father and mother." When I proposed to my beloved, I promised myself to him and he to me. We have adopted a child and our care of him has been universally praised (lawyers, judges, social workers, friends, family, and even his birthmother). And we talk to our son about difficult topics (e.g., death, "bad guys", etc.) when he asks or it's otherwise appropriate.
My husband and I have a very special bond. And when I talk with heterosexual married couples, I see no substantive differences between their marriage and mine other than the legal recognition and the rights and responsibilities that go along with that.
As for librarians, it may fascinate you to find out that librarians actually get a professional degree (MLS or MLIS), just as doctors and lawyers do at accredited schools. That's why we get to decide what goes into a (public, academic, corporate) library collection.
And even heterosexual marriage has changed significantly in just the last 50 or so years: women now have equal legal standing in the relationship and interracial marriage is legal across the US (even though that was wildly "unpopular" at the time of the Supreme Court ruling that **choosing the person you wanted to marry was a basic human right** [I paraphrase]).
There are quite a few things in the library I run that could be considered propaganda. The veggie tales series comes to mind. It uses very cute vegetables to teach kids about the bible. To an atheist family that would have the same feel.
The point of a library is that is a place to find information. I have the Bible, the Torah, a book on Confucius, a book on Buddhism, among other religious book, shelved together. If a child wanted to look at any of them, it is only a few steps away from the children's section. I also have books on reproduction and Darwin in my children's section. Many people think this is wrong, but it is not my job to remove them or limit people. It is my job to make information available for those who seek it. I am a provider of information. It is up to the individual to decide what they want to read. Also, every parent needs to know what their child is reading. If they don't like something it is up to THE PARENT to control it, not the librarian. I think this book sounds like a very cute book about dealing with change in your family and how love can grow to add in more people. There are kids out there in this situation and this is a great tool to use to explain it.
Instead of worrying about what is available for young children we need to worry about how many kids are unsupervised in the library and how few parents are actually involved in their kid's lives. A parent's words and behavior have so much more weight than any book.
Comparing religious books to gay propaganda is absurd and not worthy of a response. You know better.
Many people think this is wrong, but it is not my job to remove them or limit people.
YES. YES IT IS! It is your job as a decent human being to remove them.
It is my job to make information available for those who seek it. I am a provider of information. It is up to the individual to decide what they want to read. Also, every parent needs to know what their child is reading. If they don't like something it is up to THE PARENT to control it
Have you read ANY of this thread? If the children's section contained hardcore porn and KKK propaganda you would remove it. The issue isn't whether you would remove material, you clearly would, the issue is which material you remove.
Instead of worrying about what is available for young children we need to worry about how many kids are unsupervised in the library
We need to worry about both things. Yes, there are other problems in the world, but that doesn't erase this one.
The bigger question to me is whether, in your opinion, there are any books -- or for that matter, any communication of any kind -- that aren't propagandistic in intent.
Of course. Almost all of them. What kind of question is that?
Couldn't a reader -- yes, even a six-year-old one -- read something and not be "tricked" into agreeing with the viewpoint(s) expressed in that reading?
Possible. And that proves what? That propaganda is good because it doesn't always work?
our marriage is not (yet) legally recognized
That's another way of saying you're not married.
This is one of those times when the culture as a whole has moved forward (it's called "progress").
Bullshit. The culture as a whole opposes this gay marriage foolishness by a wide margin.
You may object that my marriage doesn't meet your definition, sorry about that, but from what you wrote of your definition it does (aside from the sex/gender part).
Aside from the sex/gender part?!?! Are you on crack? That's like saying you meet the definition for being an Olympian, except for the athletic part.
My husband and I have a very special bond.
Dude, men cannot have "husbands". They also can't have wings, gills, breasts, tails or claws. I'm sorry if that seems unfair to you, but that is the reality of the situation. Insisting that you have wings will not make it so. Husbands are the same way. I'm sure you have a special bond, but that doesn't make it marriage.
We have adopted a child
You have done a truly terrible thing. You have used an innocent child as a pawn to prove how equal you are. Kids deserve a father and a mother. You have deprived this child of that.
When that boy is 13 and the other kids on the football team find out he has homosexuals "parents" he will be humiliated. For you to put him in that situation is inexcusable. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
And even heterosexual marriage has changed significantly in just the last 50 or so
And that means that all change is good?
When a young man proposes marriage to a young woman it is a very special thing. He is committing himself to her for life and promising to put her above all others and raise children together as father and mother.
By your own definition, you've just condemned marriage (and re-marriage) between heterosexual: senior citizens, persons who are not young but have not yet reached "age of seniority", persons who choose not to have children, persons suffering from infertility issues or other medical issues who cannot have children, and anyone who has divorced and therefore not "committed themselves for life", making them not only ineligible for marriage rights, but liars and sinners to boot.
Let's not forget those who give up children for adoption - those hateful people are an abomination to marriage.
So until you avidly support a proposal that heterosexual people who cannot or will not have children, or do not remain married for life are not entitled to be married, then please, do us all a favor and quit while you're centuries behind.
Or don't, because your pathetic and ignorant, hate-filled rhetoric is actually rather amusing.
I'm confident that my husband and I have created the kind of safe, secure, and nurturing environment that will help our son to grow up to handle the slings and arrows that life sends his way.
And he is nobody's pawn.
"The point of a library is that is a place to find information. I have the Bible, the Torah, a book on Confucius, a book on Buddhism, among other religious book, shelved together. If a child wanted to look at any of them, it is only a few steps away from the children's section. I also have books on reproduction and Darwin in my children's section. Many people think this is wrong, but it is not my job to remove them or limit people."
"YES. YES IT IS! It is your job as a decent human being to remove them."
This is funny, you just told me to remove the bible from my shelves... That was part of what I was referring to as wrong in some minds. The fact that all these ideas are shelved together in easy reach yet each one can cause a conflict. Should I remove every book that someone does not like? The shelves would be bare. For that matter, I also have the Book of Mormon. With the recent scandal that loose remove it from my shelf because someone might not like it? Should I remove books on Darwinism because many Christians believe that evolution is wrong? My point is that there is a large section of the population that is OK with gay marriage. You are fooling yourself by believing otherwise. The proof is in how many states have allowed it and how more are considering it and in how may have stopped attempts to limit rights of gay people. There is also proof in what is acceptable in media.
On a personal note: I feel that the people who come to my home and try to convert me to their religion much more offensive than a book that I can choose not to read. Also, I think I will get a copy of this book, review it, and if it is what it is described to be (a cute story about a changing family and love), read it to my 4yr old daughter. It is good to teach diversity to children. She should know that not every family is the same as ours. These are my personal beliefs and I will raise my daughter to share in them. Everyone is different and that is OK.
YES. YES IT IS! It is your job as a decent human being to remove them.
As a queer-allied man I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what decency is. In what way does the queer community differ from the Christian community or the Korean community? What makes their stories less valuable to the community at large?
While inclusion in a library catalog does not imply endorsement, specific exclusion implies condemnation. Censorship is much more frightening to me than propoganda ever could be.
Anybody who refers to himself as "a queer-allied man" needs help. A lot of help.
That was part of what I was referring to as wrong in some minds.
Then you should have said that.
My point is that there is a large section of the population that is OK with gay marriage. You are fooling yourself by believing otherwise. The proof is in how many states have allowed it
That would be two - and the people didn't get to vote in either state.
I think I will get a copy of this book, review it, and if it is what it is described to be (a cute story about a changing family and love), read it to my 4yr old daughter.
You are a bad parent. It's just that simple.
Ummmm.... who elected you to be the arbiter of what can be read in a public library?
Common decency did.
Mr. Franklin,
You say repeatedly that homosexuality/homosexual marriage is "self-evidently wrong" and declining to make any comment as to why it is wrong. "Common sense" is the other phrase you keep using. Yet even within your own comment list, there are enough people who clearly feel that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not wrong to make your use of the phrases. It is clearly not self-evident, as it is not evident at all to a good proportion of people.
Axe murderers, pedophiles, and the KKK do real, objective and verifiable harm to people other than themselves. I leave out devil-worshipers deliberately. If devil-worshipers do harm to people other than themselves, then that is self-evidently harmful or evil (or both). Yet there are people I'm quite sure you would term devil-worshipers (Luciferians for instance, probably Wiccans as well, though I'm guessing at your religious opinion there), who do not do such harm and are covered by freedom of religion. In what material way would a children's book of Wiccan ritual differ from a child's view of Passover, or one showing first communion?
So, I would ask you, what objective, material harm do homosexuals or homosexual marriage do? Because it's not self-evident at all.
OK.
Last time I went into a library, it had "Mein Kampf" and various other bits of Nazi propaganda, shelved in the history section.
In the religion section it had the Torah/Tanakh, Bible, Qu'ran, various wiccan texts and various Buddhist and Hindu teachings.
And in the children's section it had books that helped children make sense of the world in which they find themselves. The point of children's books is to help children to make sense of things around them that are difficult.
This is a situation children are going to encounter, and rather than having them confused, I'd rather have them able to know that they are still loved.
Jesus taught in parables - and this is a parable that says "adult relationships are complicated, but this child will still be loved". There are stories of Jesus that make me uncomfortable - what about the time he calls a gentile woman a "dog".
How would you feel if a book about the patriarchs explained that some of them had several wives? Maybe from the point of view of Ishmael and how he felt about the birth of Isaac, his half-brother.
How about the idea that a man can marry 2 sisters (Rebecca and Leah?).
How would you feel about a modern re-telling of these narratives, showing the bible in contemporary society?
As for people marrying in order to have children - what about those who married too late (Elisabeth and Zechariah) and by a miracle had children (one that hasn't been repeated in the modern era except via IVF).
Porn and KKK propaganda aren't written for children, and aren't about enabling a child. They should be in the library though. The UK Copyright libraries certainly have them.
This book is written for children, and is aimed at those for whom this is a part of their lives. Thus it should be in the children's section. However no young child should be getting books out without their parents permission, because some books do not reflect the particular circumstances of that family.
I wouldn't let a child with a history of anorexia read the Sweet Valley High books, nor would I want a young child reading some of the books written for abuse survivors. However, for thinking about relationships, SVH has its uses and books for abuse survivors absolutely need to be on the open shelves so that the children who need them can find them.
Reading a book critically is one of the greatest gifts a child can learn. I remember picking up a book as a child that my dad didn't like much. We read it together, and we talked about it. I didn't share his opinion (at 8, I was a very opinionated young lady) but at least I understood better.
Reading the Very Hungry Caterpillar was great for thinking about issues with food - my father had issues with food due to a brain tumour, and had a tendency to gobble, and mum talked to me about what we eat and when. It didn't help much, because I'd already absorbed the lessons from the family.
Bigotry stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
You do not want to tolerate, on this issue, the idea that marriage between any two consenting adults, could be OK. Linguistically, you want to reserve marriage to something reserved to people of faith who are in an opposite-sex pairing. That is bigotry, because you do not want to tolerate it, nor do you want to tolerate the fact that this book could be needed to help a family where this (lawful) act - the marriage of two adults - could cause conversations and insecurities with small children.
You say repeatedly that homosexuality/homosexual marriage is "self-evidently wrong" and declining to make any comment as to why it is wrong.
Who are you quoting? What thread are you reading?
It is wrong for several reasons. One reason already discussed is that words have meaning. "Homosexual marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
It is wrong because it devalues real marriage. Marriage is a very special thing. To call two homosexuals living together in the Hamptons "marriage" cheapens marriage.
We have already discussed these things. Nobody has "declined to make any comment as to why it is wrong". Read the thread.
"Common sense" is the other phrase you keep using.
Again, who are you quoting?
Last time I went into a library, it had "Mein Kampf" and various other bits of Nazi propaganda, shelved in the history section.
Were they in the children's section? Because that is what we have been discussing.
this is a parable that says "adult relationships are complicated, but this child will still be loved".
The point of the book is not that "adult relationships are complicated". The point of the book is that it's OK for a man to "marry" another man. It is not designed to "help children to make sense of things around them that are difficult". It is designed to trick children into believing something that the author wants them to believe. That's called propaganda and it's wrong.
You do not want to tolerate, on this issue, the idea that marriage between any two consenting adults, could be OK.
That's because some things are right and some things are wrong. Marriage isn't between just any two consenting adults. It is between one man and one woman.
That is bigotry, because you do not want to tolerate it
False. It is not bigotry to limit marriage to the people who qualify for marriage. You have presented no new arguments here. We discussed this above. By your logic, opposing marriage for kindergarteners, teenagers, hamsters, and baseball teams makes you a bigot. That's dumb. Marriage means one man and one woman. All other things are not marriage.
By your logic, opposing marriage for kindergarteners, teenagers, hamsters, and baseball teams makes you a bigot.
Why do so many religious people have trouble with the concept of consent? Kindergarteners cannot legally consent, teenagers are more dicey, being sometimes allowed and sometimes not depending on the issue - this is true of marriage as well. The last I checked there were at least two states in the US that allowed 12-year-olds to get married. I would personally argue that that is too young for meaningful consent. Hamsters definitely can't give consent. Baseball teams aren't a single entity so consent as a person is not possible.
I am continuously bewildered by the argument of devaluation and harm to heterosexual marriage by allowing SSM. My marriage has nothing to do with Sam and David down the street, or Eleanor and Mary two states over. Given that Eleanor and Mary were together for 62 years in all circumstances, I would say that they were considerably more married than Brittney Spears.
Now if you wanted to argue that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and that everyone should have civil unions, whereupon the various religions could bless or not bless them as their theologies dictated, that I could agree to, but as long as the government, as a civil, non-religious body is in the marriage business, then it needs to do that equally, which would mean SSM. Why should your church be permitted legally to marry anyone it deems appropriate and my church not?
And back to the book. There are obviously parents who do view the book as entirely appropriate for their children, who find that it supports the values they're trying to inculcate. Why should they not have appropriate material in the library for that purpose? I happen to think that some of the evangelical christian material for children is horrible stuff that I would never permit my children to watch - but I don't try to get it removed from the library because I know there are parents who want it there. I just don't permit my children to take it out, and if they see it at a friend's house, we have a discussion about why Mommy doesn't like it. (Plus I'd be having a discussion with that friend's mother about what she was showing my children.)
Baseball teams aren't a single entity so consent as a person is not possible.
Why must it be "as a person"? Polygamists have at least as much claim to marriage as homosexuals.
as long as the government, as a civil, non-religious body is in the marriage business, then it needs to do that equally
No it doesn't. We, as a society, have decided that we want to grant special status to marriage. We have every right to do that.
There are obviously parents who do view the book as entirely appropriate for their children
And those parents are wrong. The book is propaganda.
The book is propaganda.
So is Veggie-Tales.
I am not familiar with Veggie-Tales, but I can say this: The Bible is the greatest piece of literature of all time. You cannot claim to be an educated person without having studied the Bible. There is a world of difference between biblical stories and Uncle Bobby's Wedding.
"The Bible"? Which one? Which (mis)translation of those tales of blood, retribution, slavery, stoning, paternalism, mysticism, supernatural belief, self-contradiction, and generally mean behavior?
Thanks, but I'll go with "Leaves of Grass".
And why "Leaves of Grass"?
Whitman celebrates life, love, sex, humanity, comradeship, and nature. What could be better than that?
You posted:"The entire community? How about Klansmen? Got any children's books for them? How about neo-Nazis. No? What about pedophiles? Heroin addicts? Axe murderers? Excuse me, can you direct me to some children's books about the joys of Devil Worship? What? You don't have any?!?
No, a public library does not provide material of interest for the entire community. Nor should they."
There are children's books that deal with complex topics. The librarian actually mentioned a number of topics that are covered. It seems like you are trying to imply that being gay is the same as being a murderer, or a pedophile.
Every parent should be more responsible in what their child reads, and watches on television. If you want your child to believe particular beliefs you should be ensuring that. It is not the government, nor the library's responsibility to ensure that you educate your child the way you want your child educated.
Every parent should be more responsible in what their child reads
Absurd. Every parent should be more responsible in what their child reads? Even the most responsible parent still needs to be more responsible?
Of course parents should be responsible, but that doesn't give the library license to be irresponsible. It takes a village. Everybody should be responsible.
One day I hope that someone will be able to explain to me why hetrosexual people (men mainly)who calls themselves Christian care so much about two men or women who want to get married/have a civil union. How does it impact on them? If you are married or not but belive that God has really strong feelings - feelings enough to send someone to hell perhaps for spending their life in a same-sex relationship perhaps? - is that really your concern or problem? If you are doing the right thing by (your) God then you and the people you love (and those who share or have been convinced to your point of view) will all be okay, why do you need to worry about the rest of us who choose not to marry or spend our lives/get married/have a civil union with a person from the same sex.
You may be right about God opinion but given he also said we should 'love one another' I think he would promote tolerance and acceptance. I think he would say, let them sort themselves out and you just make sure that you do the right things for yourself.
I find it surprising that no one has bothered to comment on the style of your original post. You use insulting language and exaggeration to try and sway the reader to your point of view; this is the very definition of propaganda.
I wish I could agree with the person who called you a "troll," above, because it saddens me that any educated adult would have to resort to such a childish method of stating his opinions--particularly in response to such an articulate and thoughtful letter. Unfortunately, I'm all too aware that there are plenty of people (educated adults) in the modern world, who not only share your opinions, but would agree with the way that you state them. It's clear that you have no desire to actually discuss anything, and this is a shame, because there have been a lot of thoughtful responses to this thread--more than you deserve, frankly.
I am a Bible-reading, church-attending Christian. Stop making us look bad. Please.
One day I hope that someone will be able to explain to me why hetrosexual people (men mainly)who calls themselves Christian care so much about two men or women who want to get married/have a civil union. How does it impact on them?
We just discussed that. It cheapens marriage. Marriage has a very special and exact meaning.
I couldn't care less who gets a "civil union" as long as innocent children aren't brought into things. You can enter any contractual arrangement you want. It doesn't bother me a bit.
You may be right about God's opinion but given he also said we should 'love one another'
True.
I think he would promote tolerance and acceptance.
False.
God made it crystal clear that homosexuality is an abomination. He made it perfectly clear that "a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife". It couldn't be any clearer than that.
But we are commanded to love all people. God calls us to love the sinner and hate the sin. But "promoting tolerance and acceptance" is something very different. God calls us to love all sinners, but we don't "promote tolerance and acceptance" of murder. We don't "promote tolerance and acceptance" of rape. No, sin is not to be accepted, nor should we promote tolerance of it. Sin is wrong.
You use insulting language and exaggeration to try and sway the reader to your point of view; this is the very definition of propaganda.
Using "insulting language" is the very definition of propaganda?
I am a Bible-reading, church-attending Christian. Stop making us look bad.
You may have read the Bible, but you didn't understand it.
Lou, here's the point you're missing when you keep on comparing same sex marriage to the KKK and axe murderers: marriage, whether between a man and woman, two men, or two women, is about love. The KKK and axe murderers are fueled by hate.
You need to learn to love, Lou. I hope that you do.
Best wishes.
Also, the Bible has a ton of incest and polygamy, non of which is condemned.
marriage, whether between a man and woman, two men, or two women, is about love.
Marriage cannot be between "two men, or two women". I'm sorry but that's not what "marriage" means.
I don't dispute that homosexuals love each other, and I don't begrudge them that. If they move to Key West and love each other and not bother anybody else then there is no problem.
Here's the part that I don't understand: Why can't they love each other without forcing homosexual "marriage" on an unwilling public? Why can't they love each other without calling it "marriage" and pissing off people who hold real marriage dear? Why must we all pretend that homosexual "marriage" is exactly the same as real marriage in every way? How dare they force homosexual propaganda into the children's section of the library and call anybody who objects a "bigot"?
You need to learn to love, Lou.
Who is going to love these kids? How has pretending that two gay guys are equal to a married couple helped them in their lives? Society has thrown these kids to the wolves.
And do you know whose fault it is? It is the fault of everybody who ever put political correctness above the welfare of innocent children. It is the fault of everyone who ever argued for placing homosexual propaganda in the children's section of the library or stayed up late filling Wikipedia with pro-gay "facts". It is the fault of every dolt who every tried to silence common sense dissenters by calling them "bigots". It is the fault of anyone who ever argued for tearing the very fabric of our society on the grounds that it's just "about love".
While it's obvious that you don't want a discussion, you are getting one that is fueling your stalwart views on many issues, not just homosexuality in society. You will not change your mind, the people responding to you will not change theirs. This is not an exchange of ideas, it's not even an argument (which just reminded me of Monty Python!), it's just two sides yelling back and forth over a wall.
With that being said, I'm going to start yelling over the wall too...As for your comment that a gay couple adopting a child is a cruel and awful thing to do, that the child will be taunted once they are "found out," maybe we should change that before an innoecnt child is hurt. Perhaps if we help people to understand gay marriage somehow, maybe in book form, maybe starting the discussion at an early age while minds are still being shaped and prejudices have not been formed, maybe we can save poor little Billy with two dads from being beat up in the locker room by his bigoted jock teammates. Maybe if some librarian didn't ban said book, but allowed parents and children to open the line of discussion. Nah, that would never happen in your world. Poor, Billy.
So, your argument against homosexuality is that your particular favored religious document can be interpreted as saying homosexuality is wrong. Fine. Perhaps someone else feels that religion is wrong based on the history of violence and oppression perpetrated at the hands of the religious. Should either of those viewpoints be reflected in public laws? I'd say no. But maybe that's because I disagree with both viewpoints.
Your objection to gay marriage hinges entirely on the fact that in your opinion marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. I don't think this is as strong an argument as you believe. I suggest consulting a linguist or lexicographer for more information on the meanings of words. I'm not linguist, but the basic gist of it is this: words are defined based on how they are used (descriptivism), not used based on how they are defined (prescriptivism). And the language changes all the time. That's how we end up with words that have multiple contradicting meanings (dust can mean either to apply particles to a surface or to take them off, for instance).
At any rate, the meaning of marriage isn't even the issue here. The issue, as pointed out by others, is making available books that help children make sense of their world. Not every kid lives in the same world. Just as you might want children's book espousing Christian views to read to your children, someone else might want books espousing mainstream secular views.
One last point, if we take out of libraries everything that anyone thinks (or knows) is propaganda, what will we have left? Certainly we would lose some fine literature from authors such as C.S. Lewis. And for certain we'd have to leave behind anything by Tim LaHaye (see what I did there, with the pun?!).
Cute.
It's not "my world", it is the real world. You may not like that, but that doesn't mean that Billy won't be humiliated all through his school years. He will.
I have been a 13 year old boy on the football team. Have you? Do you understand that reality, or are you trying to project your belief that all would be wonderful if people would only "understand gay marriage" from your ivory tower?
You are right about one thing: I will not change my mind. Putting gay propaganda in children's libraries is wrong. It was wrong 100 years ago and it will be wrong 100 years from now.
the language changes all the time
The language changes, but it doesn't change spontaneously for no reason. There is an atheist movement afoot to change the name of "atheists" to "brights". They want to do that because they want to change their image. That is propaganda and is the wrong reason for the language to change. Calling two hairy dudes named Fred "married" because you think that normalizes homosexuality is very different from adding the word "internet" to the dictionary.
The issue, as pointed out by others, is making available books that help children make sense of their world.
And, as Jamie the Librarian pointed out, "the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage". It is propaganda.
And, as Jamie the Librarian pointed out, "the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage". It is propaganda.
So, to my point above: do we remove all propaganda, or just the kind that disagrees with your personal views? Where does it stop? Can an atheist call and ask for the children's versions of Bible stories to be removed for the Children's section?
I'm very interested in your honest and considered response to many of the points mentioned in the comments but not addressed by you. I realize that it is hard to respond to so many lines of discussion at once, particularly when some are less-than-flattering to your viewpoints. So I don't blame you for the way you have responded, but you have not addressed any of the most-relevant points brought up by the most-level-headed commenters.
I realize that you are not interested in having much of a discussion about this (this is, after all, a venue for your own opinions), but I'll continue to try until I get bored with the conversation. :)
I realize that you are not interested in having much of a discussion about this
Sure I am. The only exception is when anonymous trolls post gratuitous nastiness then I simply remove their posts. But if you have an honest difference of opinion then discuss away.
do we remove all propaganda
Yes.
Where does it stop? Can an atheist call and ask for the children's versions of Bible stories to be removed for the Children's section?
No. Religious beliefs are an entirely different topic. Religious books say "this is what we believe"; Uncle Bobby's wedding says "this is what we want to trick you into believing". Whether you believe in religious stories or not, they belong in the library because you cannot claim to be an educated human being without understanding them. The lessons in the Bible have existed for thousands of years and have shaped societies. The "lessons" in Uncle Bobby's wedding don't compare.
It takes an adult with common sense to discern the difference, but it isn't brain surgery understanding the difference between the Bible and gay propaganda. Jamie, for example, does recognize that the book is propaganda, but for some reason doesn't have to common sense to do the right thing and remove the book. We need responsible people in leadership positions who know right from wrong and are willing to act on it. Sadly, there are lacking.
So, if your belief is that all books in a library should be suitable to the entire community, what books can you keep in the library? None!
On the one hand I could throw out the entire wretched "Left Behind Kids" series on the other hand I would have to throw out the entire SF/Fantasy section. And the mysteries. And everything else.
Lou,
Please just keep on rejecting gay marriage. We liberals love it that so many conservative gay people — who on every other issue might otherwise want to be Republicans — keep voting for the left, the only side that doesn't despise them and deny them their human rights.
Keep up the good work!
-Sutton
if your belief is that all books in a library should be suitable to the entire community...
It is not. Read the thread. Propaganda should not be allowed in the children's section of a public library.
the only side that doesn't despise them and deny them their human rights.
No "human rights" are being denied. The ability to call your relationship "marriage" - when it is not - is not a "human right".
What parents that believe gay marriage is wrong are going to let their children read the book? How can it be propaganda if the only children who read it are already being taught that gay marriage is acceptable?
I am not religious, so to me, religious books and those which promote it (such as Veggie Tales) are propaganda. It seems you only define propaganda as promotion of ideals with which you disagree. Although this has been pointed out to you many times, you refute it by refusing to accept the premise. Because of this stubbornness and your insistence on being right rather than desiring a discussion, real conversation is impossible.
You started this conversation with an accusatory tone and the arrogance of putting your foot down. The responses you got are entirely due to the method you use to communicate. Look at the responses Jamie got on his blog. Now look at yours. Why do you think people reacted so angrily to you? Are you promoting discussion, or do you just have a chip on your shoulder about homosexuals?
What parents that believe gay marriage is wrong are going to let their children read the book?
Your question implies that 100% of the time parents will accompany their kids to the library and read the book in advance of the kid. That is obviously not the case.
I am not religious, so to me, religious books and those which promote it (such as Veggie Tales) are propaganda.
This has been discussed. Read the thread.
Because of this stubbornness and your insistence on being right rather than desiring a discussion, real conversation is impossible.
There is such a thing as right and wrong. I am insisting that I am right because I am right. You can discuss as much as you like, but in the end, gay propaganda in the children's section of the library will still be wrong.
There is such a thing as right and wrong. I am insisting that I am right because I am right.
That's what I mean. What's to discuss? You should shout your views into the wind, for all the good it does anyone else.
This has been discussed. Read the thread.
Yeah, I read the thread. I disagree with you. Honest people can have honest disagreements. In order for that to happen, however, you have to acknowledge that there is a point of view that is different than your own, and that you are not the sole and final arbiter of community standards and the freedom of speech.
Maybe we could compromise? Require that every library that has a copy of "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" also have a copy Chick Publication's "The Gay Blade."
https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp
Then they might cancel each other out. It's a win-win for libraries everywhere!
Lou: No. Religious beliefs are an entirely different topic.
Yet, you have repeatedly argued against the ability of religious groups that do recognize same-sex marriage to express their views.
Why do you advocate religious discrimination against the UU, the MCC, reform Judaism (such as Joe in this very thread) and others?
Shouldn't they have the same rights to have their religious marriages recognized the same way that your (presumably Christian) church does? If so, how can you claim that you aren't discriminating against their religious beliefs?
How dare you? Using a single example of a gay couple abusing children as something common, once again comparing homosexuality to something evil. I've know and loved people who were terribly, sexually abused by church-going, straight parents, adopted and biological. I suppose that's all fine and good in the eyes of God though, isn't it. Or at least in the skewed, holier-that-thou eyes of Lou Franklin it is.
Congratulations on making the world a worse place than it already is, Lou.
I hope you one day come to terms with your own demons.
This thread (and the original this is a response to) are very well-timed for me. I am a Christian, youth group leader at my church, deacon (although I'm going to assume that you are not okay with having females in any sort of church leadership), etc...
I recently was berated by a parent (of an eighth grader) about the inappropriateness of a story I told in Bible study. She used many of the same phrases you have. I'm evidently attempting to brainwash her child into thinking it's okay to sin. Why?
We were talking about King David (I'm sure you know, I and II Samuel). I told them the story of David and Bathsheba to illustrate that God forgives no matter how big your sin is. David was God's chosen and anointed king, after God's own heart. David committed adultery (I won't even go into the wife and concubine situation of early kings of Israel). There was tangible proof of it through pregnancy. He tried to cover it up. That didn't work. He ended up killing many innocent men to finally cover his sin. Then Nathan shows up and calls him out on it. David immediately asks for forgiveness and admits his sin. God forgives him.
It's all in the Bible. Yet a parent was upset because she (mistakenly) believed that by telling this story so the kids would know that all sin would be forgiven, I was telling her daughter that it was okay to sin. God would forgive her anyway so she may as well go out and have fun. The parent accused me of brainwashing and feeding her child the propaganda that sin was okay. I was supposed to edit all the wrong-doing out of the Bible.
And by your standards, she is right. Furthermore, no child would ever be able to learn about God through His book in a library because parts of it teach children wrong. It tells children that it's okay to sin. It even gives several heroes' footsteps to follow. All because of nit-picking about one aspect of a book and missing the overall theme. God's love. Or in this book's case, that a change in the family (through a marriage by your definition, a change in relationship, or the birth of another child) doesn't not change the love of a parent, grandparent, or uncle. Funny how our lives as sinners does not change God's love for us. Pretty important lesson.
I've know and loved people who were terribly, sexually abused by church-going, straight parents
I doubt it.
you have to acknowledge that there is a point of view that is different than your own
It is admittedly hard for me to understand the point of view that says that homosexual propaganda belongs in the children's section of a public library. You are welcome to try to make the case, but it's a tough sell.
And by your standards, she is right.
How so?
It tells children that it's okay to sin. It even gives several heroes' footsteps to follow.
That is incorrect. You are a youth group leader and Deacon?? What denomination?
I notice a lot of people are calling Lou's viewpoint homophobic, and it certainly is. But I think the deeper cause of it is actually sexism, and that attacking him as being homophobic won't do any good because he's basing his arguement on very strict traditional gender roles which will need to be fixed before he can make any progress.
"...marriage has meant the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. When a young man proposes marriage to a young woman it is a very special thing. He is committing himself to her for life and promising to put her above all others and raise children together as father and mother. It is a very special moment and forms the nucleus of society."
I think the emphasis on the man's role here, and the absence of any action on the woman's part, is very telling. For Lou, marriage isn't just between a man and a woman; it's between a dominant man and a submissive woman. It's also a model for all of society.
But same-sex marriage denies the traditional roles that he describes. He can't, or doesn't want to, believe that a man could take on a subordinate role, or a woman could take a dominant one. Or that the roles could switch, or that they could cooperate, or simply that two people could love each other in a way he doesn't understand.
He mentions that he was a 13 year old on a football team, and understands the embarrassment that a youth with gay parents would feel there. I think that he may feel his own embarrassment, either because he was picked on by the other boys or he did the bullying himself. Either way, it points towards discomfort with non-traditional gender roles.
This discomfort is what (i think) is really driving his opposition to gay marriage and his general homophobia.
But I could be wrong! Lou, what do you think? What do you see is a man's role in a marriage? What's the woman's role? Could a man play a woman's role, or could a woman play a man's? If a woman proposes marriage to a man, is the marriage invalid or not real? What if a man married another man, but put on a wig and acted like a woman?
traditional gender roles which will need to be fixed before he can make any progress.
"Traditional gender roles" don't need to be "fixed". And you have a warped definition of "progress".
For Lou, marriage isn't just between a man and a woman; it's between a dominant man and a submissive woman. It's also a model for all of society.
You bet your ass. But that isn't "sexism", that is sanity. Men and woman are fundamentally different. In the 60's Gloria Steinem tried to pass off some bullshit that men and woman are the same. She was wrong. Any parent who has a boy and a girl can tell you that. Most people now recognize that.
He can't, or doesn't want to, believe that a man could take on a subordinate role, or a woman could take a dominant one.
No, a man shouldn't take on a subordinate role, and a woman shouldn't take a dominant one.
He mentions that he was a 13 year old on a football team, and understands the embarrassment that a youth with gay parents would feel there.
Don't you? Weren't you ever 13?
There was a kid in my neighborhood who was adopted. The other kids would taunt him, chanting "Tommy's mother is a virgin" over and over again. They made that kid's life miserable. So what do you think 13 year old kids will do when they find out that one of the kids in the neighborhood has two men for "parents"?
his general homophobia.
"Phobia" means fear. I oppose homosexual marriage, but there is no fear involved whatsoever. Words have meaning. Please use them correctly.
What do you see is a man's role in a marriage?
As the man.
What's the woman's role?
As the woman.
What if a man married another man, but put on a wig and acted like a woman?
It is not possible because "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman. If they tried, then they would be freaks.
I don't know how we got to a place as a society where people don't know right from wrong, men don't know what it means to be a man, and homosexuals propaganda is peddled to children. But it is wrong. Not "alternative"; not "progressive"; Wrong.
But can you describe in any more detail what the man or the woman's role is?
Do you realize that you haven't made a single coherent argument this whole time?
You and those similar to you are why I hem and haw and blush when I have to admit to being a Christian. Please, please, please learn something about logic, rational arguments, and sanity before you post anything else.
To summarize Lou's viewpoints:
1) it is morally wrong to have the book in the children section for the following reasons:
- it portrays a same-sex relationship. This is sin so morally wrong
- it portrays the same-sex relationship as normal. This is propaganda, thus unsuitable for children.
- it calls the relationship marriage, which is incompatible with God's vision of marriage. Calling "marriage" something that is not marriage weakens / diminishes the value of marriage.
2) because of these 3 points, and despite any law that allows it elsewhere, the librarian should take action and remove the book on the ground of moral responsibility.
3) as to the underlying arguments:
- same sex relationships are sin and morally wrong in the same way that murder, adultery, incest, pedophilia are wrong. This is dictated by God and common sense clear to any Christian.
- moral wrong is an absolute value that has not changed throughout history. It is purely and without discussion reason enough for disapproval and condemnation, as it has always been, regardless of God's commandment to forgive and love the one who sins.
- marriage is the union and commitment between a dominant man and a submissive woman, for the purpose to make a father-mother-children family. Man is made by God to be dominant, Woman is made by God to be submissive. It is morally wrong to behave or promote a different combination.
Lou, am I summarizing properly?
To make the summary more complete, could we have your opinions over the following topics:
- what do you think and feel over the appropriateness to tell children over the story of David and Batsheba and God's subsequent forgiveness? (as suggested in a previous comment)
- do you think or feel that libraries should be run by responsible Christians, and that a Christian committee should review and approve books that are placed in the children section?
Also, relevant to this discussion I would be interested to know how would you personally explain to your children the following sections of the Bible, or if you would accept books in the children's section over the following topics:
- the relationship between Jonathan and David, as depicted in Samuel
- the relationship between Ruth and Naomi
- God's condemnation as "abomination" of the eating of schrimps, oysters, calamari, clams, in Leviticus?
- God's mandate in Romans and Corinthians that women be covered by veils and silent when in public or in church
- God's condemnation (in the same books) of the teaching of men by women, in any shape or form
- God's approval of the right for a man to punish in any way he sees fit when his wife is sinning
- God's approval of slavery, depicted in Saint Paul's letter to the Romans
- God's condemnation in Deuteronomy of lending of money for the purpose of raising interest, what would be called "credit" these days
- God's condemnation in Leviticus of the clothes made of different kinds of threads, such as cotton and polyester
Why, according to you, are we not following these teachings of the Bible nowadays?
What allows us (you, me) to skip these parts of the Bible in our daily lives?
Please note: I'm not making judgement on your opinion here. I'm asking questions to push the discussion further. Thanks for replying.
As a historian of marriage in the US, I find it puzzling that you insist that marriage has always meant the same thing throughout the history of the nation. Quite simply, that’s wrong. The definition of marriage has changed over time. Marriage has not always meant a union between one man and one woman. In some states, polygamy was legal. In some states, marriage meant a union between one white man and one white woman. That too has been changed. In some states, marriage meant that a woman lost all civic identity; literally her name was erased over by her husband’s in the law. That used to be what marriage meant to people living then. It has since changed. (Check out books by Nancy Cott, Hendrik Hartog, or Michael Grossberg about this topic. It’s a fascinating one.)
So, it is factually wrong of you to say that marriage has had one static meaning throughout the history of this country. It is also incorrect to claim that this is the first time in the nation’s history that the definition of marriage has changed. If you would have asked someone in the nineteenth-century what marriage “meant,” they would have given you a different definition than even you would give today. (Not to mention that the definition you did give would not fit many marriages today or even throughout history. Although we love to believe that a man always proposes to a woman in romantic bliss, not every marriage begins this way. You may not realize it, but probably some people in your own family aren’t married under your very restrictive definition—a definition that does not reflect the legal definition of marriage in any state currently. So this is actually your own special definition. Why do you get to impose your own definition on the rest of us?)
Also, you keep insisting that no morally repugnant or illegal acts are represented from skewed perspectives in the children’s section of the library. But as Jamie pointed out, children’s stories have a long tradition of representing immoral or illegal acts from a particular perspective, which might glorify something that we think is wrong. I think Veggie Tales is Christian propaganda, designed to trick my non-Christian children into believing in Jesus. Should these too be removed? Don’t keep ducking this question by saying you haven’t read this very popular series of books. Just consider the idea: should picture books designed to glorify a particular religious point of view be shelved in the children’s section of the library? I think these books are wrong and offensive, designed to spread lies, simplify a difficult religion, and make kids believe that the only way to “be nice” is to be a Christian. Frankly, I’d rather my kids never read them. Instead I have to learn to deal with the fact that they will be exposed to these books, and I know I will have to have a conversation with my kids about what they read and why we don’t believe the same thing in our family. But I believe that what we do and believe in the home is more powerful than a book’s mere presence on the library shelves. Why don’t you?
And I'm not suggesting we "ban books that discuss this issue", but discussing doesn't mean deceiving. The book only "discusses" one side of the coin. If we are going to discuss, let's discuss both sides of the issue honestly as adults - not in the children's section. And not using cute animals who tug at little children's heartstrings in order to brainwash them.
So, by this standard, you would disapprove of, for example, Jesus Loves You Like a Little Fluffy Bunny, which deals with a divisive subject that some people disagree with, only deals with one side of the issue, and uses cute baby animals to emotionally manipulate children?
I assume that you're working equally hard to have all such books removed from the library, and not just the ones that you, personally, disagree with, right?
I am in favor of removing propaganda from the children's section of the library. There is no such book as Jesus Loves You Like a Little Fluffy Bunny.
But can you describe in any more detail what the man or the woman's role is?
The man is the head of the household. The woman is the wife and mother. She supports the man and raises the children. That's not to downplay the importance of the woman in any way. She is as vital to the family as the man. Behind every good man is a good woman. But men are different from women. The have different roles because they were made differently. Pretending that they are not different never works. And children thrive when they have a male and a female role model.
Do you realize that you haven't made a single coherent argument this whole time?
Yet you aren't able to refute a single one.
moral wrong is an absolute value that has not changed throughout history. It is purely and without discussion reason enough for disapproval and condemnation, as it has always been, regardless of God's commandment to forgive and love the one who sins.
But it is still sin.
do you think or feel that libraries should be run by responsible Christians, and that a Christian committee should review and approve books that are placed in the children section?
We shouldn't need a Christian review committee. People like Jamie should do their jobs. You don't need to be a Christian to identify gay propaganda.
What allows us (you, me) to skip these parts of the Bible in our daily lives?
Most of them (e.g., restrictions against shellfish, polyester, etc.) are pre-trib. Look, we can debate the Bible endlessly. What can't be debated is that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination in many places - both in the Old and New Testament. You don't even have to get out of Genesis before you read "a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh". There is no debate about that.
In some states, marriage meant a union between one white man and one white woman.
And "one white man and one white woman" are one man and one woman. And polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-nineteenth century, and at the state level before that. The point is that marriage has meant the union of one man and one woman for a very long time. It has never been legal for a man to marry a man in this country.
I think Veggie Tales is Christian propaganda, designed to trick my non-Christian children into believing in Jesus. Should these too be removed? Don’t keep ducking this question
I haven't "ducked" anything. I talked about the difference between religious books and gay propaganda at length. Just read my comments above.
Instead I have to learn to deal with the fact that they will be exposed to these books, and I know I will have to have a conversation with my kids about what they read and why we don’t believe the same thing in our family.
And what is the answer?
I believe that what we do and believe in the home is more powerful than a book’s mere presence on the library shelves. Why don’t you?
Who said I didn't? This debate has never been about which is "more powerful".
I find it odd that you've never heard of Veggie Tales being as Christian as you claim to be. Do you actually have children? You are making a lot of noise about how parents ought to raise their children yet you're not speaking as if you have any idea how a kid's mind really works.
I have a five year old. If I were to read this book to her it would be no more indoctrination to her as if I were reading the Bible to her. You seem to think a child's mind works the same way as an adult's mind and if you think so you are wrong.
I keep seeing you mention that somehow because its cute animals that this somehow indicates that it is brainwashing. I'm not quite sure how you're coming to that conclusion (hell...I'm not sure how you're coming to any of your conclusions other than the fact that you have a really closed mind) but it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't have kids...or if you do you don't spend any real time with them.
You seem to think a child's mind works the same way as an adult's mind
What would cause you to reach that conclusion?
it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't have kids...or if you do you don't spend any real time with them.
Based on what?
Someone else commented: I've know and loved people who were terribly, sexually abused by church-going, straight parents
Your response: I doubt it.
Really? So church-going, straight parents are not capable of sexually abusing their children? Interesting, that.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/31/preacher.freezer/index.html
That's a news story from yesterday about a preacher who killed his wife and stuffed her body in a freezer after she discovered him sexually assaulting their children.
So, really, it doesn't happen?
"You seem to think a child's mind works the same way as an adult's mind"
What would cause you to reach that conclusion?
Because everything you've said points to that conclusion. You keep talking about indoctrination, brainwashing, etc. Children have no concept of those things and they don't look at stories that way. You are transposing adult ways of thinking onto children and quite simply it doesn't work that way.
"it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't have kids...or if you do you don't spend any real time with them."
Based on what?
For god's sake man on everything you've said! Do you really think children know what homosexuality is let alone whether its right or wrong? The depiction in the book, whether by animals or people, makes no difference. Watch kids even for a second and you see instantly that they have no idea of morals...their minds simply aren't that advanced yet. So to think that somehow that book is going to change their worldview in one reading is preposterous.
And no offense but are you so sheltered as to think they're not going to hear about this stuff in a million other places? They're going to probably ask the questions anyway.
You can sit on your high-horse and proclaim morals for everyone until you're blue in the face but simply because you believe in something doesn't make it true nor make it apply to me or anyone else. Marriage has been many different things over the course of humanity, you're simply basing your belief on the bible? Thats a shame.
That whole post was a shame. It made no sense whatsoever. Because children have no concept of those things, they are easier victims. If you have a point, you're going to have to let us know what it is.
"And polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-nineteenth century, and at the state level before that. The point is that marriage has meant the union of one man and one woman for a very long time."
So, you admit, then, that you were *wrong* when you claimed that marriage has had the same definition since the beginning of this nation. (And for what it's worth the federal government passed anti-polygamy legislation into the 1880s, which is hardly a "very long time" ago.)
You recognize then that the definition of marriage can and has changed. It has not meant one thing and one thing only since the beginning of time, as you pretend.
It's important to keep in mind that marriage has routinely been under states' jurisdictions, and each state has had differences over what marriage meant at any given time in their borders. Some allowed divorced people to remarry, others considered that bigamy. And some states allowed polygamy, just as some now allow gay marriage. And yes, it is marriage under these states' laws, just like polygamy was marriage under these states' laws.
So you can't keep insisting that marriage equals this one thing and this one thing only, and that it always has and always will to "right-minded people." You have essentially made up a definition, which might fit your moral view, but does not (and never has!) reflected the legal structure of marriage in any state in the history of the nation.
I suppose you would have supported a constitutional ban on divorce, which was proposed in the 1870s. Divorce, after all, causes more harm to marriage than anything else, since it allows the easy dissolution of the union. So maybe you should start attacking children's books that make divorce seem "ok" and "normal."
And I had read the whole thread and still don't think you provide a very fine distinction between children's religious books and propaganda. Sure, there are books that claim "this is what we believe and you're free to disagree." But children's books that depict Jesus as the only savior don't imply there's room to disagree. They are just designed with pretty pictures of animals lovingly coming to God's fold. It makes a series of myths seem like normal reality. I have no problem with my child reading the Bible to learn about the world's great religions; let's not pretend that's what veggietales or any other Christian propaganda does. It fits your definition perfectly; you just choose to stubbornly refute this because they endorse your beliefs about the universe. Just as Uncle Bobby's Wedding supports mine, and many others here.
I am in favor of removing propaganda from the children's section of the library. There is no such book as Jesus Loves You Like a Little Fluffy Bunny.
True, I made up a hypothetical title. I was hoping you'd be able to respond to the point I was making, rather than getting bogged down in the specifics of a particular book. But there are dozens of children's books out there that match the criteria exactly. For example, how about All God's Creatures? It has emotionally loaded pictures of cute baby animals, which it uses to try and influence young children into uncritically accepting a premise that many people disagree with. By your definition, this is propaganda and should be banned from libraries, right? How about Hermie: A Common Caterpillar?
And if religious books are de facto exempted from the charge of being propaganda, does that mean that you'd be happy to see Unitarian children's books that gave children their religious views on same-sex marriage?
[[Do you realize that you haven't made a single coherent argument this whole time?]]
Yet you aren't able to refute a single one.
That's the thing about incoherent arguments. They can't be refuted because they're not coherent. Let me give you an example: Gay marriage should be legalised because snurblits are frabjous in the moonlight. I'm pretty sure that can't be refuted, only dismissed as being incoherent.
And "one white man and one white woman" are one man and one woman. And polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-nineteenth century, and at the state level before that. The point is that marriage has meant the union of one man and one woman for a very long time. It has never been legal for a man to marry a man in this country.
40 years ago, this was all true of mixed-race marriages. Marriage was defined as being between one mand and one woman of the same colour. It had never been legal for a black man to marry a white woman. Can I infer that, if we had been having this conversation 40 years ago, you'd be using the same arguments in that fight as you are in this one? Why is the definition of marriage as it exists right now so much more sacred than the definition of marriage as it existed half a century ago?
It has not meant one thing and one thing only since the beginning of time, as you pretend.
I made no such claim.
So you can't keep insisting that marriage equals this one thing and this one thing only, and that it always has and always will to "right-minded people."
Who are you quoting?
And if religious books are de facto exempted from the charge of being propaganda, does that mean that you'd be happy to see Unitarian children's books that gave children their religious views on same-sex marriage?
Unitarian Universalism is not a religion. They have no beliefs. They are nothing more than a club - and a loony one at that.
Gay marriage should be legalised because snurblits are frabjous in the moonlight.
Seek help. If you think that comment related to this discussion you are even more of a space shot than you first appeared. If only you were as clever as you think you are.
Why is the definition of marriage as it exists right now so much more sacred than the definition of marriage as it existed half a century ago?
For many reasons. First of all, that definition of marriage wasn't biblical. "One man; one woman" is.
I really don't know why I'm even bothering adding to this "discussion", but there is one point you made, Lou, which I'm curious about. You said that for two homosexuals to call their relationship a marriage "cheapens marriage"; that it "devalues real marriage". I'm curious as to why. In what identifiable ways does a loving, committed relationship between two men or women fundamentally change the nature of a loving, committed relationship between two people of the opposite sex? What does it mean to "cheapen" or "devalue" "true marriage"? Furthermore, how does a relationship between two people with whom you will never come into contact change the relationship between you and the loved ones in your life, or the lives of other heterosexual couples?
Also, you say that "children thrive when they have a male and a female role model". I take this to mean that you think children who have two male or two female role models as parents are lacking an important presence in the course of their development. What is your opinion of children who grow up in single-parent homes? In that case, clearly, the child is lacking either the male or the female role model. (At least, to the same extent that a child with homosexual parents would. Of course, many children have role models other than their parents--aunts, uncles, teachers, family friends, etc.) I'm guessing that you would prefer a child grow up in a single-parent home rather than in a home with homosexual parents, due to the "exposure" to a homosexual lifestyle, but that's just a guess. Thanks in advance to your response to all of my questions.
Unitarian Universalism is not a religion. They have no beliefs. They are nothing more than a club - and a loony one at that.
Reform Judaism, Episcopalianism, Buddhism. Are these "clubs" or "religions"? Do they have beliefs? Would they have the right to tell their children what they think constitutes "marriage"?
[[Gay marriage should be legalised because snurblits are frabjous in the moonlight.]]
Seek help. If you think that comment related to this discussion you are even more of a space shot than you first appeared. If only you were as clever as you think you are.
Did you honestly not understand that I was making an (extreme) example of an incoherent argument to demonstrate why people couldn't refute your "points"?
For many reasons. First of all, that definition of marriage wasn't biblical. "One man; one woman" is.
So your entire point is that everyone should be forced to have the same religious beliefs as you?
And you still haven't said if you think that All God's Creatures is propaganda.
Oh, and 50 years ago, a significant number of people believed that the Bible was quite explicit in forbidding mixed-race marriages. Some people still believe that today. I know people (with Th.D's after their name, no less) tell me that the Bible forbids marriage between people of different religions. It's a fairly mainstream belief in Orthodox Judaism that marriage is a covenant between two Jews, based on the Torah. The schism that led to the Southern Baptist Church splitting off from the Baptist Church was over whether the Bible explicitly said that slavery was a moral good.
So, why should I believe that your interpretation of (a translation of) the Bible is more accurate than that of George Carew, Pope Pius XII, Strom Thurmond or my grandfather? None of them agree with each other, but they also don't agree with you. And I'm pretty sure they've spent more time studying the Bible than you have.
Which passage would you like to discuss?
You said that for two homosexuals to call their relationship a marriage "cheapens marriage"; that it "devalues real marriage". I'm curious as to why.
Being an Olympian is a very special thing. Very few people can reach that level of excellence. But if we were to widen the qualifications for being an Olympian, and allow high school jocks and casual athletes in the Olympics, then being an Olympian wouldn't be so special anymore, would it. Allowing almost anybody in the Olympics would make the Olympics decidedly unspecial and would indeed "cheapen" or "devalue" the Olympics. Even if the people who would now qualify as Olympians are people with whom you will never come into contact with, it would devalue and cheapen the Olympics.
I take this to mean that you think children who have two male or two female role models as parents are lacking an important presence in the course of their development.
Absolutely.
What is your opinion of children who grow up in single-parent homes?
It is less than optimal. Most single parents would be the first to admit that. Unfortunately, sometimes a parent dies and a kid finds himself with one parent. Sometimes those kids fare OK, sometimes not.
I'm guessing that you would prefer a child grow up in a single-parent home rather than in a home with homosexual parents, due to the "exposure" to a homosexual lifestyle
Absolutely. There are no circumstances where an innocent child should be raised by homosexuals.
Reform Judaism, Episcopalianism, Buddhism.
Buddhism is not a religion. The Episcopal Church does not "marry" homosexuals. I am not familiar with "Reform" Judaism. I suspect that falls under the category of a "club", but I don't know. That could mean almost anything.
Did you honestly not understand that I was making an (extreme) example of an incoherent argument to demonstrate why people couldn't refute your "points"?
I understood what you were trying to do. You failed. That example was not similar to my argument in any way.
So, it sounds like this whole dispute comes down to the fact that you think heterosexual people are "special" in that they alone are qualified to be married, while homosexual people are essentially of a lower order and therefore have fewer rights. Is that correct? If not, please help me understand.
Buddhism is not a religion.
There are half a billion Buddhists who would disagree with you.
The Episcopal Church does not "marry" homosexuals.
In jurisdictions where same-sex marriages are legal, Many Episcopalian ministers absolutely do. In other jurisdictions, they will happily bless long-term unions between same-sex couples.
I am not familiar with "Reform" Judaism. I suspect that falls under the category of a "club", but I don't know. That could mean almost anything.
Just because you are unaware of the largest Jewish denomination in North America does not mean that the term is undefined.
Are you actually aware of the existence of religions other than your own?
please help me understand.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Things other than one man and one woman are also special, but don't meet the criteria for marriage.
Many Episcopalian ministers absolutely do
Got a link?
they will happily bless long-term unions between same-sex couples.
They also bless dogs and jewelry.
Just because you are unaware of the largest Jewish denomination in North America does not mean that the term is undefined.
1.1 million members is tiny. There are billions of Christians.
There are billions of Christians in North America? Funny...I thought North America was far shy of 1 billion people. Are the other 500 million hiding somewhere?
Because children have no concept of those things, they are easier victims. If you have a point, you're going to have to let us know what it is.
Actually they aren't easier victims Lou...that's the point. They aren't victims at all any more than if they got moral lessons from Christian vegetables. Seems pretty obvious you have no experience with kids...or just don't care.
In order to be the victim of something like that one need understand it. You may want to read the entry on propaganda on wikipedia because quite honestly I'm not even sure you understand what it is. The thing that is most amusing about the term is its origins in Catholicism (you know...Christians). What is important to note in that article is that a certain level of cognition is required, a level that young children simply don't posses. A child believes in Santa Claus because his parents tell him that Santa exists. He has no idea that they are lying to him. A child believes that Jesus Christ is his saviour because his parents tell him so. He has no idea what that means...just that Mommy and Daddy say so so it must be true.
What amuses me is that you believe in Christ and that somehow the Bible (written by men with motives of their own) is infallible yet I suspect you don't believe in Santa. Why? Is there some reason why Christ coming back from the dead is more believable than a fat guy in a red suit coming once a year to give presents to kids?
Almost forgot...you're equating the kids book with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
Still one in the same to you?
Who said it is "one in the same"? That is one example of propaganda and Uncle Bobby's Wedding is another example. What confuses you about that?
There are billions of Christians in North America? Funny...I thought North America was far shy of 1 billion people. Are the other 500 million hiding somewhere?
Been stupid long? Reread my post. I never said "There are billions of Christians in North America".
In order to be the victim of something like that one need understand it. You may want to read the entry on propaganda on wikipedia
It says "Of all the potential targets for propaganda, children are the most vulnerable because they are the most unprepared for the critical reasoning and contextual comprehension required to determine whether a message is propaganda or not".
That's what I said. You may want to read it before you tell me to read it. Dumbass.
I want to thank everyone who has participated in this fascinating discussion. One commenter talked about the wall (and yelling over it) that separates the different world-views presented. After reading the entire thread, I became very sensitive to the underlying basic ontological differences between the participants and their opposing views. I find that greatly educational.
So, thank you, all who have posted, for your ideas and gentle discussion have given one person much to ponder.
Lou, specifically a thank you for the direct link to the article on propaganda. I found this one sentence has captured my attention: "The implication then is that if peer-groups can be indoctrinated through propaganda at a young age to hold certain beliefs, the group will self-regulate the indoctrination, since new members to the group will adapt their beliefs to fit the group's."
I was inculcated - along with everyone in the neighborhood and school - with certain beliefs at school, home and church during my entire childhood. The group did self-regulate, as the above sentence describes. The library was also so regulated, enforcing the belief system.
There were no books presenting other viewpoints. In retrospect, that was a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
However, I was a child, and did not know better, and did not have someone to present any other view.
Today, after reading this discussion, I think someone has finally put a little crack in all those years of indoctrination in propaganda.
Maybe it is a good idea to have such books in a children's library.
"Serenity",
You are obviously welcome to take any stance on this issue that you want, but I've got to say - your conclusion doesn't follow the facts. This seems to be where your thought process derailed:
There were no books presenting other viewpoints. In retrospect, that was a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
However, I was a child, and did not know better, and did not have someone to present any other view.
There are "other viewpoints" and there are inferior viewpoints. Some viewpoints simply don't deserve to be presented.
Some kids like chocolate and some like vanilla. It's great to present both viewpoints, but the viewpoint that heroin is better than ice cream is not equally worthy. It is an inferior viewpoint and does not merit inclusion just because it is "another viewpoint".
Ontology aside, there are good reasons that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. There are religious and biblical reasons, as we have discussed, but there are many other secular reasons as well.
If you travel much in this country, you see homosexual men hanging around in front of highway rest stops. This is no secret. Any cop or truck driver will tell you that. Disgraced homosexual and former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey admitted to that activity in his book.
What do you think about people who hang around bathrooms in order to have anonymous sex with the first stranger to happen by? Does that seem like normal behavior to you? Do you really think these people should be raising children? Is this really an equal viewpoint that needs to be heard?
You have heard me being called a "bigot" and worse for having the courage to speak the truth. Polls show that most Americans disapprove of homosexual marriage, but almost nobody is willing to withstand the abuse of homosexuals activists. Hence, people hear one side of the debate and think that homosexual "marriage" is just another viewpoint. That is the real tragedy here. And the children are the victims.
Lou,
Thank you so much for your considered response.
Lou, I really don't know that "Some viewpoints simply don't deserve to be presented." In general in an adult library, I would be grateful to see what I would consider to be inferior viewpoints represented. For example, I say that the KKK should be represented - an inferior viewpoint in my opinion - so that the inferior viewpoint can be examined in the light of day for what it is.
In a children's section, such viewpoints can also be represented in proper children's style and an age appropriate manner. I think it a good idea to ensure that age-appropriate information is available to children on a wide range of subjects.
Lacking information, a child's mind is fertile ground for the planting of dangerous ideals, cultivation of false beliefs, and the indoctrination of skewed values.
Certainly, I don't know much about gay men hanging out at rest stops, the same as I don't know anything about Columbian drug gangs or uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons in Iran. I know these things exist.
There is a simple fact involved, however, that can not be refuted: Not all Iranians engage in uranium enrichment, not all Colombians are involved in a drug gang, and not all gay people hang out near restrooms waiting for anonymous sexual encounters.
When the California marriage decision occurred, there was an old couple, two women, who I think were the first to be married. One of the women was in a wheelchair.
I doubt they hang out at rest stops waiting for anonymous sexual encounters with anyone at all.
These women undoubtedly have family and friends who are neither gay nor childless. Perhaps they have brothers, sisters, cousins and friends who have children who will be asking questions, wondering if their Aunts will still love them after the wedding.
One does not need approval or disapproval to love a child or to be loved by a child, gay or not. But change can be disturbing to children and adults alike.
If there was a book in the children's section of the library that addressed the issue of a gay aunt or uncle entering into an official life partnership... in a safe, age-appropriate manner, then maybe the concern felt by children in these two women's lives could be assuaged.
Isn't that the book that is exactly what this entire thread is about?
Better to have the information available, than not. Without the information, the child is assuredly left to their own devices, sitting in their own fears.
So yes, I think that the viewpoint - inferior or not - should be heard, both by adults, and in the children's section of the library.
Sometimes Columbian drug gangs do good things. So should we legalize Columbian drug gangs? Should we make efforts to normalize Columbian drug gangs? No. That makes no sense at all.
We're right back at square one. How do you explain to these kids that society has thrown them to the wolves because there was a gay woman in a wheelchair? It's irresponsible and wrong to put children at risk that way.
Lou, people most certainly do not only hear one side of the debate. Your online presence here is proof of that--there are many different opinions regarding the legality and appropriateness of homosexual relationships available from a variety of sources. The beauty of living in a society where we are allowed the freedom of speech is that viewpoints such as yours (and those of Sally Kern and the like) are freely distributed, just as are the viewpoints of those who believe people who are born as homosexuals (not a choice, BTW, as scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating) should have exactly the same civic rights that the rest of us do.
Yes, it is a shame that some homosexual men wait at truck stops in order to have anonymous sex with others. But you can't tell me this type of behavior is found only within the homosexual community. Surely you realize this?
What do you think about people who hang around bathrooms in order to have anonymous sex with the first stranger to happen by? Does that seem like normal behavior to you? Do you really think these people should be raising children? Is this really an equal viewpoint that needs to be heard?
I agree that people who engage in this type of risky and irresponsible behavior probably shouldn't be raising children. However, if you think that this behavior identifies the entirety of the homosexual community, you are either ignorant or blatantly and willfully ignoring facts. And what about all the straight couples who, by your definition, are perfectly qualified to be parents but who are alcoholics or drug addicts, who abuse their children and spouses, who put their families in danger due to their lifestyle choices? I am a female; what about all the men who have whistled, or cat-called, or sexually harrassed me? Should those people be raising children? How is that worse than homosexuality?
Frankly, I'm disturbed by your ice cream vs. heroin example. Are you suggesting that simply the existence of homosexual people in our society is as dangerous as heroin? That it is addicting and inherently destructive to self and society?
I understand that you think that for someone to support homosexual rights--actually, human rights, unless you think they don't qualify to be humans, either--is a viewpoint or opinion that does not deserve merit. But what about the rest of us? I FERVENTLY believe that intelligent design, from a scientific perspective, is a load of crap and has absolutely no business being taught in science classrooms. In churches and in homes, sure, but NOT in classrooms. I believe it is a viewpoint without merit, an inferior viewpoint due to its lack of foundation in scientific inquiry. That, however, does not give me the right to restrict that viewpoint from being expressed to others in private, non-government-sponsored settings. What is the difference?
Incidentally, I notice you have not expressed your opinion as to whether All God's Creatures is propaganda. This is the third time it's been mentioned--will you respond?
About public support for gay marriage. You're correct; historically, the public has opposed granting homosexuals the right to marry under civil law. However, please take a look at some of the recent polling. A Field Poll report which was released on May 28, 2008 indicates that 51% of registered California voters support gay marriage, 42% oppose it, and 7% have no opinion. (You can read this report at http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080528/news_1n28field.html; please excuse my lack of formatting ability.) Now, you might notice that a good deal of that support comes from young, liberal, Democratic voters, and voters from areas like LA and the San Francisco Bay area. Yes, older, conservative, and Republican voters tend to oppose gay marriage. But ALL of those people are part of our society, and in a democracy, ALL of those voices deserve to be heard.
A California State ruling on May 15, 2008 stated the following, with regard to whether legally recognized same-sex partnerships should be referred to as marriages:
"... we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
[from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF]
Summary: In California, at least, it is unconstitutional to prohibit the relationships between same-sex couples from being called marriages. The times, they are a'changin', like it or not.
And one last point: regarding your comparison of being "qualified" to marry to being "qualified" to compete in the Olympics, marriage is not a sport or a contest. It is a covenant between two people who have decided to share their lives and their love with each other. It affects only the two people who have entered into that bond--no one else. I hope that someday you will be able to respect all humans as people. Now, before you get all defensive and start pointing out rapists and murderers and the like who don't deserve your respect, that is not my point. My point is that people are people. Whether or not they are attracted to members of their own or of the opposite sex has nothing to do with their inherent worth as human beings.
Oh, for goodness' sake, Lou. Yes, that story about the boys in England is tragic, and it should have never happened. But the judge herself said "this is not about homosexuality, it is about abuse of trust."
By your logic, we should outlaw evangelical preachers, too, since they're all going to abuse their children, kill their wives, and force their children to help place the chopped-up remains of their mothers in the freezer. Good grief.
Hello again, Lou.
Sometimes Columbian drug gangs do good things. So should we legalize Columbian drug gangs? Should we make efforts to normalize Columbian drug gangs? No. That makes no sense at all.
Let's first make a fair comparison, Lou.
Sometimes Columbians do good things. Some of them sometimes enter into criminal activity such as drug cartels. So is it OK that we recognize or legalize Columbian marriages and families?
Yes, of course.
Sometimes Columbians enter into drug gangs and smuggling and kill people. Should we legalize drug cartels as valid businesses?
No, of course not.
We're right back at square one.
Only if/when you take us there, Lou. Make a fair comparison. To NOT make a fair comparison is to detract from any argument you make for your stance. Might as well shoot yourself in the foot before entering the race.
Some gays wait at rest stops to enter into anonymous sex - just like some heterosexuals enter into prostitution.
Other gays enter into life partnerships, exclusive monogamy, and family relationships, just like many heterosexuals do.
Rather than make all sex illegal because there are some people entering into dangerous and irresponsible sexual activity, how about we make it illegal to enter into public sexual acts as well as prostitution? And leave the good families with exclusive monogamous relationships alone.
These are fair comparisons, Lou.
How do you explain to these kids that society has thrown them to the wolves because there was a gay woman in a wheelchair? It's irresponsible and wrong to put children at risk that way.
How do you explain this to Esther Combs? Society certainly seems to have thrown her to the wolves - and it doesn't look like any gay person was involved. Perhaps Baptists should be the target for you on this one?
That does not seem fair to me at all. I really do not understand how you can equate all Columbians with Columbian drug cartels. I don't know how you get there, and I'm not sure I will ever understand how anyone can get there.
And I do not think I want to understand it, either. It looks really nasty and ugly. It looks like you want to throw out the baby with the bath water, simply because the bath water is dirty.
Even I will not go along with you on that, Lou.
Lou, people most certainly do not only hear one side of the debate. Your online presence here is proof of that
If only that were so. Most people disapprove of homosexual marriage. The polls bear that out. But very few people are willing to put up with this kind of grief.
just as are the viewpoints of those who believe people who are born as homosexuals (not a choice, BTW, as scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating)
You simply don't know that. Saying "scientific evidence is increasingly demonstrating" is another way of saying that the jury is still out.
should have exactly the same civic rights that the rest of us do.
And they do. Their rights are identical.
Yes, it is a shame that some homosexual men wait at truck stops in order to have anonymous sex with others. But you can't tell me this type of behavior is found only within the homosexual community.
Yes I can. Ask anybody who drives a lot. Homosexual men hang around in front of highway rest stops. Heterosexuals do not.
I agree that people who engage in this type of risky and irresponsible behavior probably shouldn't be raising children.
That really should be the end of the conversation. Ah, but political correctness prevails, so we continue...
if you think that this behavior identifies the entirety of the homosexual community...
We have discussed this. If we turn a blind eye to the harm that Columbian drug gangs do, because they sometimes do good things then we are fools.
That, however, does not give me the right to restrict that viewpoint from being expressed to others in private, non-government-sponsored settings. What is the difference?
The difference is that the children's section of a public library is not a private, non-government-sponsored setting.
Incidentally, I notice you have not expressed your opinion as to whether All God's Creatures is propaganda. This is the third time it's been mentioned--will you respond?
We have discussed this at length:
Comparing religious books to gay propaganda is absurd and not worthy of a response. You know better.
The Bible is the greatest piece of literature of all time. You cannot claim to be an educated person without having studied the Bible. There is a world of difference between biblical stories and Uncle Bobby's Wedding.
--
It affects only the two people who have entered into that bond--no one else.
False. It affects children and their children and their children. It affects schools and libraries and friends and coaches. It affects the entire society.
My point is that people are people. Whether or not they are attracted to members of their own or of the opposite sex has nothing to do with their inherent worth as human beings.
No argument. But that doesn't make them eligible for marriage. Polygamists and children are human beings too. They can't get married either.
Some gays wait at rest stops to enter into anonymous sex
Many do. All over the country. It's not an isolated incident. It's rampant. Far more common that Baptists, my friend.
>Two males...isn't marriage. Period.
Guess what - in several states it is.
Looks like you don't get to define marriage for everyone else.
>Unitarian Universalism is not a religion.
The Us government disagrees.
>The difference is that the children's section of a public library is not a private, non-government-sponsored setting.
Which means that your "private, non-government-sponsored" bigotry is not applicable.
I must apologize: my example of creationism/ID being taught in schools as comparable to Uncle Bobby's Wedding's placement in public libraries was not entirely appropriate. However, the difference is that the proposed amendments by various school boards (most recently the Texas State Board of Education) would REQUIRE intelligent design to be taught in classrooms. Simply offering a piece of information, alongside many other, differing, pieces of information is not imposing that piece of information on anyone.
Okay.
Comparing religious books to gay propaganda is absurd and not worthy of a response. You know better.
The Bible is the greatest piece of literature of all time. You cannot claim to be an educated person without having studied the Bible. There is a world of difference between biblical stories and Uncle Bobby's Wedding.
But Lou, I don't know better. I was raised in a godless, heathen household. My parents should be ashamed. (Actually my mother's parents are. They still send me ridiculous religious PROPAGANDA every Christmas.)
I have two undergraduate college degrees and am working on a Masters degree. I have not studied the bible in depth, but I am familiar with many of its teachings, as well as its historical significance and its (mis)translations. (BTW, Lou, do you read Greek or Hebrew? If not, it could be argued that you haven't read the bible at all.) Actually, I read a fascinating book by Tod Lindberg called The Political Teachings of Jesus. I'd highly recommend it. Jesus had some great things to say.
I am also familiar with some other religious texts: the Koran, the Bhagvad Gita, The Way (yikes), the Yogic scriptures. And yes, I do consider myself to be an educated person. I certainly have much to learn--I hope that all of us continue to learn throughout our lives--but I do consider myself to be educated.
Have you read any of these non-Christian texts? If not, how can you consider yourself to be an educated person? Surely exposing yourself to only one viewpoint does not lend itself well to the development of effective critical thinking skills? Or do you think critical thinking is hogwash, too? Based on your responses, I'm thinking that might be the case.
What is your objective evidence that the bible is the greatest piece of literature of all time?
I'm tired of this. It's clear that a number of your readers have opinions which differ from yours, and I'm sad to see that the values of a free society have not made their way into your own head. I won't try to argue with you further--not because I want to grant any degree of credibility to your "arguments", but because it's clear that there is no point. Serenity (bless her; she has more patience and tact than I do, clearly) was right: you are not making fair, reasoned comparisons. You continue to distort her use of Colombian drug cartels as an example, and your inability (or refusal) to correctly interpret her point says quite a lot about your own reasoning ability. I give up, Lou. Thank goodness there are others who are able to restore my faith in humanity.
You give up because you can't articulate a meaningful counter-argument.
your "private, non-government-sponsored" bigotry is not applicable.
What makes it bigotry? Is denying marriage to siblings bigotry? Is denying marriage to polygamists bigotry?
Simply offering a piece of information, alongside many other, differing, pieces of information is not imposing that piece of information on anyone.
My problem with the book is not that it is "imposing". The problem is that it is propaganda.
do you read Greek or Hebrew? If not, it could be argued that you haven't read the bible at all.
That would be an absurd argument.
What is your objective evidence that the bible is the greatest piece of literature of all time?
That's not how literature works. A great many scholarly people consider it to be so, but obviously there is no way to put it in a test tube and measure it.
you are not making fair, reasoned comparisons.
Yet you can't articulate why. Of course "not all gay people hang out near restrooms". That is obvious. But a great many do. That is different behavior from that exhibited by heterosexuals. We don't all need to agree on an appropriate analogy in order to see that there is a problem there.
By and large, I think there's a whole lot of arguing over semantics as far as Lou goes. Sometimes people just like to stir the pot because they can. And some people have a response to everything - reasonable or otherwise.
But you can't reason with unreasonable people. Case in point.
Emma.
Children's Librarian and fan of Jamie's work. :-)
What do you find "unreasonable"? If you had a salient point, you'd be making it now.
When your answer to the question "What is the difference between your definition of propoganda and religious literature?" is "Comparing religious books to gay propaganda is absurd and not worthy of a response. You know better," then you are by definition being unreaosnable. If you have a reason, then please reason with us. If your answer amounts to "becasue I said so and anyone who isn't stupid knows I'm right," then that is not reasonable, because it cannot be reasoned with.
So, let me see if I can sum up your argument.
1) Gay relationships are immoral, because
1a) My religion says so, and
1a.1) any religion that says otherwise isn't a real religion, including Reform and Conservative Judaism, Unitarianism, Episcopalianism and Buddhism.
1b) Many gay people hang out a truck stop restrooms for anonymous sex. This is true because I say so, even though I have no evidence to back this up, and because "many" of them do this, there can be no such thing as a loving gay relationship.
2) Because gay relationships are immoral, any book that depicts them that is geared towards children is propoganda.
2a) Any parent that wants to teach their children that gay relationships are okay is a bad parent, and does not deserve to have a say in what is available in the library.
2b) Even though two states, soon to be three or four, have legalized gay marriages, meaning that gay people HAVE and WILL get legally married, to explain this to children using a book is wrong.
3) Propoganda does not belong in the children's section of the library, therefore these books should not be available in the library.
Does that about cover it? Did I leave anything out?
Not that I expect you'll read this, since you didn't read the link in my first comment, but here is a pdf an amicus brief by the APA about the use of the term marriage for same-sex relationships.
A choice quote: "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."
Of course, who needs science when we have such cogent arguments as "I'm right because I'm right"?
Yet you can't articulate why. Of course "not all gay people hang out near restrooms". That is obvious. But a great many do. That is different behavior from that exhibited by heterosexuals. We don't all need to agree on an appropriate analogy in order to see that there is a problem there.
That is true. But many heterosexuals hang out in adult bookstores, adult theaters, hire escorts/prostitutes, etc. MANY heterosexuals visit swingers clubs looking for anonymous sex. MANY heterosexuals meet up at parks for the purpose of "Dogging". People of all sexual orientations find their own outlet for sexual needs. Regardless, it's just stupid because it has no point whatsoever in the original discussion.
This is true because I say so, even though I have no evidence to back this up
I cited McGreevey's book as evidence. A Google search of "homosexuals highway rest stops" returns 67,600 results. It is true. Educate yourself.
1) Gay relationships are immoral, because
Nobody is arguing that "gay relationships are immoral". We are discussing homosexual "marriage". Think.
any religion that says otherwise isn't a real religion, including Reform and Conservative Judaism, Unitarianism, Episcopalianism and Buddhism.
"Conservative Judaism" wasn't discussed at all. Unitarian Universalists don't share any religious beliefs. Some people go there and worship their dogs. The Episcopal Church does not "marry" homosexuals. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and I don't believe Buddhism advocates same sex "marriage" anyway.
and because "many" of them do this, there can be no such thing as a loving gay relationship.
Who said "there can be no such thing as a loving gay relationship"? What point are you responding to?
any book that depicts them that is geared towards children is propoganda.
Another paper tiger. Nobody said any such thing.
Does that about cover it? Did I leave anything out?
Yes you did. Intelligence and relevance.
A choice quote: "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children."
That is false and it certainly isn't "science". Statistically, homosexual men do not have stable long-term relationships. They have more, and shorter relationships. This - in and of itself - is not conducive to raising children. Children learn how to deal with males and females by watching their parents. So if you read that "choice quote" and believed it, you weren't using your head. It is patently false. Period.
MANY heterosexuals visit swingers clubs looking for anonymous sex.
False. I have never seen nor talked to anybody who has visited a "swingers clubs".
Just because you don't know anyone who's done it doesn't mean straight people don't. Or do you magically know every straight person, ever?
I stand by my original comment (way back up there XD). I simply cannot believe you are an educated adult: you do not even answer the points brought up. You just insult people. This is proven by, among other things, the fact that you informed me I was reading the Bible wrong, when I made no statements about the Bible, only said that I read it. You don't even know if I agree with your stance on homosexuality--you're just assuming I don't, because I'm attacking you.
Your conduct is appalling. Nearly everyone who's posted in response to you has been patient and articulate, and all you can do is continue to spout "I'm right and you're wrong"--without evidence. Citing one book is not enough, when these people are citing articles and scientific studies and even marriage definitions. Saying that Google "brings up results"--what does that prove? "Heterosexual child molestation" brings up 69000+ results--does that mean all heterosexuals, or even most, molest children? Does that mean that molesting children is a stereotypically heterosexual behavior? You like to throw out the phrase "statistically" a lot--so let's have those statistics! Cite your studies!
Or, y'know, just confirm that you're a troll; that's cool, too. And if that's the case, you're very convincing, so good job.
Just because you don't know anyone who's done it doesn't mean straight people don't. Or do you magically know every straight person, ever?
Did I claim to "magically know every straight person, ever"? Did I claim that "straight people don't"?
When CNN declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the California Democratic primary, they didn't claim to "magically know every voter ever". They took a sample.
Similarly, when you walk out your front door and notice most of the birds you see can fly, you don't need to cite a host of government-sponsored studies to confirm that birds fly. You simply look at the world around you.
you informed me I was reading the Bible wrong
No, I said that you don't understand it. If you read what the Bible says about marriage and homosexuality and concluded that this was a "thoughtful letter", you missed the point.
You don't even know if I agree with your stance on homosexuality--you're just assuming I don't, because I'm attacking you.
Yes, I must admit the "attacking" had a lot to do with it. LOL.
>When CNN declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the California Democratic primary, they didn't claim to "magically know every voter ever". They took a sample.
Yes, a statistically-representative scientific sample.
Your "people I know" sample doesn't constitute a statistically-accurate sampling technique.
Stat 101.
So the fact that YOU "have never seen nor talked to anybody who has visited a 'swingers clubs'" is enough for you to declare CATEGORICALLY that is is "false" that many heterosexuals visit swingers clubs looking for anonymous sex?
First of all, do you spend a lot of time asking the people you know whether they go to swingers clubs? So how do you know that they haven't? Second, what makes you think that the people of your acquaintance constitutes a representative sample of heterosexuals? And how many homosexuals have you actually seen or talked to who hang out at rest stops looking for anonymous sex? How many homosexuals do you know who are terrible parents?
Is James McGreevey's book supposed to prove something? "This guy says something happens, therefore it is true." No dice, sorry. And Google hits? If I google UFOs, I get 8,960,000 hits. Does that prove that UFOs exist? If I google "straight swingers" I get 4,460,000 hits. If I google "straight church sexual abuse" I get 211,000 hits. And if I google "loving gay parents" I get 2,440,000 hits. So does that prove you wrong?
All right, we hadn't discussed Conservative Judaism before. We are discussing it now. Conservative Judaism allows rabbis to perform gay marriages. (Mine does it all the time.) So does Reform Judaism, which you still haven't addressed. I won't bother arguing the rest of them, since I am better equipped to debate on the first two.
Now, your response to the scientific study shown as evidence. "That is false and it certainly isn't 'science'." Based on what do you say this? is it not science because you don't agree with the result? Or do you have a reason to believe this study was not conducted scientifically? If so, please share. The American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers say it IS science. Based on what do you disagree with them?
"Statistically, homosexual men do not have stable long-term relationships." Can you please reference those statistics? And even if that IS true, what does that have to do with whether the homosexual men who DO have stable, long-term relationships will be good at raising children? Ga peopel don't get drunk and have "oops" pregnancies the way teenagers do. Gay parents have to plan and prepare for children very carefully. No gay male couple that is not in a "stable, long-term relationship" goes to teh trouble of adopting a child. So, where do you think all of these children are coming from? Do you think gay men pick them up on their way home from the rest stop at the baby store? And by the way, if I google "stable long term gay relationships, I get 184,000 hits - 2.7 times as many as when you googled "homosexuals highway rest stops."
So, to reframe your argument:
1) Gay marriages are immoral, because
1a) My religion says so, and
1a.1) any religion that says otherwise isn't a real religion, including Reform and Conservative Judaism, and a bunch of "philosophies" that are protected by the Constution as religions.
1b) Many gay people hang out a truck stop restrooms for anonymous sex. This is true because I say so, even though I have no evidence to back this up other than teh fact that there are a bunch of google hits that match my search criteria, and that a disgraced ex-Governor says so. Because "many" of them do this, there can be no such thing as a stable long-term gay relationship.
1c) Because marriage has always been between one man and one woman, except for in the bible and in the US and in quite a few other countries outside the US.
2) Because gay marriage are immoral, any book that depicts them as normal that is geared towards children is propoganda.
2a) Any parent that wants to teach their children that gay relationships are okay is a bad parent, and does not deserve to have a say in what is available in the library.
2b) Even though two states, soon to be three or four, have legalized gay marriages, meaning that gay people HAVE and WILL get legally married, to explain this to children using a book is wrong.
3) Propoganda does not belong in the children's section of the library, therefore these books should not be available in the library.
Is that closer?
And by the way - you do realize that if someone presents you with scientific evidence, and you respond by saying "It is patently false. Period," that you haven't actually refuted the point, right? I mean, scientific study performed and approved by five major and respected orgianizatins in the field in question on one hand, random guy on the internet who refuses to believe evidence on the other - the fact that you state it is false doesn't actually carry any weight.
Followed the thread, hoping to find some evidence for your opinions, but instead found... more of your opinions.
Pointless idiotic reactionary self-important blogger trash.
By the way, you're welcome for my continued support of your First Amendment Rights.
Twit.
Mr. Franklin:
You don't want a discussion.
You want to insult people who have a different viewpoint from yours. Your responses are filled with ridicule. Several posters have tried to have a more reasonable discussion with you and you are just as dismissive and insulting to them.
People try to explain to you why this book should not be viewed as propaganda (or at the very least no more or less propaganda than children's books about the bible), and the best you can come up with is to restate that they are wrong, use hyperbole (KKK/Nazi comparisons), or to suggest that they are bad people.
That is not an argument, that is not a refutation of their position; it is merely a statement of simple disagreement.
Why is pro KKK and Nazi literature not the same thing as literature that depicts homosexuality positively? Because the KKK and Nazis want to kill specific segments of the population, or at the very least treat them as valueless pieces of meat. Last I checked, Homosexuals weren't looking to do that to anyone any more or less than heterosexuals are. That's why the comparison is inappropriate.
MANY heterosexuals visit swingers clubs looking for anonymous sex.
False. I have never seen nor talked to anybody who has visited a "swingers clubs".
Well, you have talked to one now. I've been to many. I'm straight. I know lots of people that go to them. It's people hanging out talking to other people, getting naked and having sex. We just don't do it by rest stops. That's the only real difference.
It's just unfortunate that you won't even discuss things rationally at this point. I wouldn't expect you to change your mind because I wouldn't expect mine to be changed because of something you wrote but to completely avoid discussion of something you don't know about just seems silly, immature and mostly just sad.
If a marriage is NOT performed by a Roman Catholic priest then it is simply not a marriage. QED.
You can call it whatever you want, such as living in sin, fornication, what have you, but it's not marriage. Sorry Jews, and all you heretics and apostates, that's just the way it is. Sucks, eh?
Straight White Christian Men used to run this country (if not the "known" world). Today those who don't identify with one, some or all of those labels are now expecting not only to be heard, but to be able to participate in the running of this country (and this world). The SWCM is losing his monopoly on power and it's scary for him.
You see, he never really had to defend his points of view. He could give an answer plucked wholesale from his dogma (because that was the only belief system that mattered) and anyone who disagreed would be ostracized, bashed, lynched or shot.
However, today other dogmas have fought to coexist with the SWCM belief system. But when someone like Lou spews forth their pronouncements, they still believe that they don't have to then defend them. They don't understand that other people can disagree with them and not only get away with it, but have valid opinions. That's why Lou can't formulate a cogent argument, the SWCM haven't yet developed the tools.
Lou, other religions and ideologies exist. Their adherents believe different things. Some of them believe that your beliefs are wrong. Guess what? They are as right and as wrong as you are. Don't force your beliefs on me and mine and I won't force mine on you. And when we're on common ground, like a library or the internet, the Constitution of this great country says that we're both allowed equal standing. That's not my opinion, that's the law.
> So the New York Yankees can marry the Cleveland Indians as long as they consent?
I came here from Jamies page, now I am this far intot he comments on your page.
I wonder Lou if you can explain, as it is not clear to me, what your background is. Age, education, etc.
The reason I ask is that on your page, you seem to not be aware of, or dismiss that well into my lifetime (and maybe yours, I don't know) miscegenation - laws against interracial marriage - were on the books and enforceable.
Starting in 1946 with a decision by the California Supreme Court, and not concluding until a Supreme Court decision in 1968, the same arguments you make were made, word for word except for homosexual interracial of homosexual: It is God's will, the definition of marriage doesn't allow it, it is just wrong, etc.
If I understand you correctly, you are perfectly fine now with interracial marriages, please correct me if I am mistaken.
That is what happens after 40 years. People forget what the earlier fight was about, and they accept tacitly the error of their ways and life goes on.
These are not the only two fronts on this ongoing battle. an excellent book that surveys the sociology and legal history of how law regarding relationships in the US trails the leading edge of social change, but how eventually it has always caught up while the edge continues to move forward, is "The Purchase of Intimacy" which is available on Amazon for your convenience.
It is simply a survey, the reason I recommend it to you and folks interested in this debate from any point of view is that our country has always had these debates, they always turn out the same way, and that the next one is always around the corner.
Given that your point of view has been espoused regularly in 9ur history and without fail come up on the short side of the stick eventually, why do you think this time will be different when you present the same time worn and historically losing arguments?
at least I plead with you Lou to read and really study the book so you can learn exactly WHY your arguments have come up short in the courts, and in the field of public opinion time after time through history, right up until the late 60s at least.
The benefit for you and folks standing with you is that you might identify some type of new persuasive argument; the benefit to us is that we can enjoy assisting you with your growth as a human being, and if I might add, watching you learn to "do unto others as you would do unto yourself".
So again, I ask you in all earnestness in the interest of understanding your point of view, which you assert over and over again without proof that it is logical, what is your educational background and how does that lead you to understand what is a logical and rational train of thought beyond simple assertions?
And I ask in all earnestness about your age, because you seem to not be aware of even recent historical parallels to your argument in which even you have accepted the outcome despite the impassioned pleas, as yours are, of many generations of your elders?
And finally, back to the quoted section at the top of this message which made me wonder about your age.
KIn fact, in the early 70s. maybe sometime around 72 to 74, multiple members of the Yankees and Indians DID marry each other's wives. It was plenty newsworthy, I am sure google will help you find out about it.
The world didn't stop. Any outrage turned out to be of the "mock" variety and of no significance whatsoever.
It's of plenty of significance to these kids.
If I understand you correctly, you are perfectly fine now with interracial marriages, please correct me if I am mistaken.
I have always been perfectly fine with interracial marriages. A white man and a black woman meet the criteria for marriage: they are one man and one woman.
why do you think this time will be different when you present the same time worn and historically losing arguments?
It is not the "same time worn and historically losing arguments". This is an entirely different topic. Just because interracial marriage is allowed, does not mean that homosexual marriage will be allowed. Eventually the Supreme Court will get involved and that will be the end of this nonsense once and for all.
learn to "do unto others as you would do unto yourself".
Who is going to do unto the innocent children?
That's not my opinion, that's the law.
The law doesn't say that homosexual propaganda must be placed in the children's section of the library.
They are as right and as wrong as you are.
Not so. Anybody who deprives innocent children of a mother and a father and forces them to grow up with homosexual "parents" is wrong. Dead wrong.
All right, we hadn't discussed Conservative Judaism before. We are discussing it now.
Smooth segue.
So does Reform Judaism, which you still haven't addressed.
Yes I have. Please read before posting.
Based on what do you say this?
Based on what I said it was based on. Read my comments.
The American Psychological Association
The APA classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973 when political pressure was applied by homosexual advocates, forcing them to change their official position. That position does change over time and could very well change back.
No gay male couple that is not in a "stable, long-term relationship" goes to teh trouble of adopting a child.
False. And badly spelled.
1) Gay marriages are immoral, because
...of the reasons that I have given. Maybe this would be good for you.
2) Because gay marriage are immoral
Dude, "gay marriage are immoral"?
Why is pro KKK and Nazi literature not the same thing as literature that depicts homosexuality positively?
Nobody claimed they are "the same thing", but they are all examples of propaganda.
The amusing thing to me about threads like this is that future generations of Lou's family tree will look him up and be able to find this.
sure similar things were spouted by the rank and file about slavery, interracial and interfaith marriages over the years, but they were not indexed forever by google and other sources.
I don't expect to live long enough to find out how people will react to finding their ancestors held such opinions as Lou has so strenuously, but I imagine it will be quite amusing the further on in generations you get.
Let's hope that future generations say "I'm glad we listened to him" rather than "I wish we had listened to him".
Lou: do me a favor. Pretend I'm your granddaughter, okay? I'm asking you some questions, some sincere questions, and you're going to try to explain your answers to me, coherently and respectfully. If I mistype a word, you're going to respond to the point, and not to the typo, and if I ask you to answer something you think you've already answered, you're gouing to answer it again, as if you haven't been asked it before.
Please respond to the following:
1) Why do you think that isolated incidents of homosexuals abusing children or allegedly seeking anonymous sex at rest stops has any bearing on whether homosexuals in stable relationships can raise children, when a) clearly straight people do the same things, (witness my previous post on google hits, which you did not respond to, and these links:
http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080807/NEWS08/808070339
http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7149740&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.1.1
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/PCoughlin/11579487/ )
and b) we have already presented scientific studies showing that homosexuals CAN and DO raise perfcetly well-adjusted children.
2) You have not, in fact, addressed Reform Judaism, except to say that you don't know anything about it, but you "suspect" it is a "club," not a religion. So: given that the two largest branches of Judaism in the US both endorse and perform gay marriages, by what right do you say that your religion's view on the morality of gay marriage should be enshrined in the publicly funded library, and the view of most of the Jews in this country should be expunged? Jews have children too, you know. And I don't think you will find many people agree with you if you try to suggest again that Judaism is a "club."
3) Why does the fact that the APA once classified homosexuality as a mental disorder mean that they cannot now support a study that finds that homosexuals are perfectly fine parents? That's what reasonable people do - when the evidence proves them wrong, they change their minds. The evidence proved the APA wrong 35 years ago, and they have changed their minds. There has been a lot of evidence presented here proving you wrong - and again, I have not heard a single fact from you supporting your argument that homosexuals cannot be good parents. (Remember, a fact is something backed up by evidence, not something that you believe. A belief is something that you believe. There's nothing wrong with beliefs, but don't confuse them with facts. Remember also, anecdotes are not evidence, and neither are the number of google hits on a subject. Scientific studies performed under scientific conditions are evidence. Statistical studies are evidence.)
You have a belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's fine. You have a belief that homosexual marriage is wrong. That's also fine, but homosexual marriages DO exist - both under US law and under religious law. You have a belief that homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children that heterosexuals. This is FACTUALLY untrue. The APA did a study in 1995 that found that gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to abuse their children that straight parents: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgparenting.pdf
(Choice quotes: "...the overwhelming majority of child sexual abuse cases involve an adult
male abusing a young female." and "...gay men are no more likely
than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse.")
You have a belief that children should be raised by a mother and a father, and that's also fine, but clearly that belief isn't enough to make you want to take children away from their single parents and place them in adoptive homes with two straight parents. So while you may think that it is better for every child to be raised by two parents of opposite gender, the fact remains that there are kids in the world who have gay parents, and who have gay aunts and uncles.
So, given that gay marriage DOES exist; that children DO have gay parents and gay relatives; and that your belief that such things are wrong are by no means universal, even among religious people; and given that, barring extreme reasons, we try to let libraries be places where information is available, and not censored, EVEN in the children's room; based on what do you think it is right for you to tell me what my children can and cannot read in the library? Why do you think your religious views should carry more weight than my religious views, AND scientific studies by the APA, AND the laws of California, Massachussetts and New York? (NY recognizes gay marriages, but does not yet perfrom them.)
I don't understand why people here are actually trying to convince this waste of 'human' flesh that homosexuality is fine, gay marriage is fine (albeit as silly and often hypocritical as straight marriage), and that teaching children that sometimes men 'love' other men or women 'love' other women (knowing full well that sexuality, whether 'homo' or 'hetero', is less about love than about attraction, etc, and that they can understand that when they understand the sexuality part as teens). But why waste your time or your breath?
He thinks that some idiotic fictional character from a 2000-5000 year old storybook is telling him how to live, and that he thinks that character thinks homosexuality is wrong. So he not only is delusional, but has poor reading comprehension as well. Again, why waste your breath?
He brings up unrelated topics, such as bestiality and devil worship to equivocate them with homosexuality, as topics that should not be taught to children. Well, his 'holy book' has bestiality, devil worship, homosexuality, murder, incest, and much else depicted in its pages. Would he claim that children shouldn't be allowed to read it? Of course not, he is an absolute hypocrite. When something espouses a view that his tiny mind agrees with, he will support it, but challenge his ignorance, and that mind shuts off. So, again, why waste your breath?
He has already ignored countless pieces of evidence that 'The Bible' isn't true, and that it contains dangerous, disgusting, and offensive directions - ones that he glosses over, doesn't live his life by, and instead picks and chooses the parts of the book that he was indoctrinated into believing by a closed-minded, also-delusional parent or pastor. This lack of congruence does not bother him, nor will his hypocrisy here. So why waste your breath?
I guess I'm wasting my breath in a futile attempt to embarrass him so thoroughly that he snaps out of his ignorance, stops doing what some moron on a pulpit tells him to do, and starts to create something resembling a logical worldview. But, as I said before, I know it's futile, and silly. Too bad.
Matt--
While I agree that Lou is being ridiculous, I'm pretty sure the reason he's being an idiot is just because he's an idiot, or a troll. Please don't blame it on his religion, because I can guarantee you that even if he wasn't Christian, he'd find some other group to vent about, some other points of view to impotently rage against.
Basically, I agree that it's a waste of time to argue with him, but don't bring yourself down to his level. You're saying all Christians are morons who ignore science and reason, which, I'm sorry, is just as bigoted as Lou's statements that all homosexuals molest children.
Also, Lou, you still haven't addressed the request for evidence that I and MANY others have given you. C'mon. At least quote some Bible passages; you know you want to. :P
I never said that all Christians are idiots who ignore science and reason. I said they're delusional... which is true... but we all are, hell, sometimes I have the delusion that I'm decent-looking =D
What I wanted to emphasize is that he isn't even being consistent with his own mythology, so how the hell do you expect to convince him that logic or reason can take over? He was claiming that children shouldn't be exposed to "bad" things, yet he would be gladly for a child reading the Bible... which has those same exact "bad" things.
But please don't misconstrue my pointing out the fact that the Bible is wrong with any sort of bigotry. I don't hate anyone. Except for mimes.
I find it fascinating that, over and over again, you comment simply that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it ends there.
I agree emphatically that it has always been this way for the 232 years that the United States has been a nation.
However, what I find interesting is that there has been no commentary about how marriage, as an institution, has changed throughout the ages. Biblically, marriage was between a man and one or more women. By the time of the Medieval Christian era, this had clearly been abbreviated to one man, one woman. Throughout much of European history, marriage meant that the man overtook the rights of the woman, in many cases removing her right to own property and making her rights largely secondary to that of her husband. This, too, has changed in the modern era. Finally, we have the issue of "miscegenation", which by the 1960s had also been legally destroyed.
I absolutely agree with you that allowing single-sex marriage is a quantum leap in the definition of marriage, but I also fail to see why it would be automatically wrong. The theme throughout is that it is so, and that its "wrongness" is a self-evident truth. Forgive me for my confusion, but I fail to see what irreparable damage it would do to the fabric of society.
Silly analogies like people marrying hamsters or entire baseball teams getting married notwithstanding (as a sidenote, I would love to see what that ceremony would look like!), it seems to me that the argument you have boils down to:
1) This is a fundamental change to the institution of marriage (I agree with this!)
2) As a fundamental change to the institution of marriage, it is a wrongheaded one (still waiting for a cogent argument as to why)
3) Allowing this sort of change would weaken the institution (Did it weaken the institution to allow women to retain property? Did it weaken the institution when it became socially acceptable for a spouse to divorce a spouse that was physically abusive or threatening?)
4) Anyone who cannot see that this is wrong has a fundamental moral blindness (This is an argument that, truly, cannot be answered, and where I fear our discussion breaks down into absurdity and name-calling).
Furthermore, I feel the same sense of baffled confusion as I do when confronted with those that insist that women cannot be called to the priesthood--as if the Creator would be as silly to limit certain types of ministry based solely upon one's genital plumbing!
Lou Franklin, the problem with your position is that your notion of right and wrong is based on what your religion apparently tells you. As you put it, the definition of marriage which you are using "is ordained by God".
For better or worse, however, you live in a country which is not a theocratic dictatorship. It is a country distinguished by the fact that freedom of expression and freedom of religion is enshrined in its constitution.
As such, you simply have to accept that some of your countrymen have different beliefs than you do about what is right and wrong. You may argue with them, but you cannot deny them or their children access to materials which support their beliefs, because that would run counter to the principles on which your country is founded, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Would you?
Of course. "Freedom of expression" doesn't mean putting Nazi propaganda in the children's section of the library. It doesn't mean hanging centerfolds on the walls of a nursery school. "Freedom of expression" is not absolute.
I'm asking you some questions, some sincere questions
You are not. You are asking loaded and dishonest questions that presume your liberal worldview.
1) Why do you think that isolated incidents of homosexuals abusing children or allegedly seeking anonymous sex at rest stops has any bearing on whether homosexuals in stable relationships can raise children
They aren't "isolated" by any stretch of the imagination. They are not "allegedly" seeking anonymous sex at rest stops. They are seeking anonymous sex at rest stops. And homosexual "marriage" would include all homosexuals, not just "homosexuals in stable relationships".
a) clearly straight people do the same things
Not so. Straight people do not hang around in front of highway rest stops. Read the thread.
2) You have not, in fact, addressed Reform Judaism, except to say that you don't know anything about it, but you "suspect" it is a "club," not a religion.
Incorrect. For example, I talked about how tiny their numbers are. Please read the thread before posting. Then go tell an Orthodox Jew what a great idea homosexual "marriage" is.
Jews have children too
So do Klansmen, pedophiles, axe murders, and heroin addicts.
3) Why does the fact that the APA once classified homosexuality as a mental disorder mean that they cannot now support a study that finds that homosexuals are perfectly fine parents?
It doesn't. They can support anything they want. But were they right 30 years ago or are they right now? Or will they be right 30 years from now when they reverse their position again?
I can tell you one thing for sure. Anybody who believes that "Homosexuals are perfectly fine parents" accepts it on faith. There is no valid scientific evidence to support that.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgparenting.pdf
Thanks for the link to the publication of the Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns. Very neutral.
we try to let libraries be places where information is available, and not censored, EVEN in the children's room; based on what do you think it is right for you to tell me what my children can and cannot read in the library?
Read the thread. I'm beggin' ya. Dude, information is "censored" in the children's section of the library all the time. Try as you might, you will not find Debbie does Dallas next to The Little Engine that Could.
He brings up unrelated topics, such as bestiality
Who brought up bestiality?
I'm wasting my breath in a futile attempt to embarrass him so thoroughly that he snaps out of his ignorance
How old are you? Are you 12? I'll bet you're 12.
my pointing out the fact that the Bible is wrong
You now have two choices. You can either prove that the Bible is wrong, or you can admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is it?
Did it weaken the institution to allow women to retain property? Did it weaken the institution when it became socially acceptable for a spouse to divorce a spouse that was physically abusive or threatening?
How does that prove that this change wouldn't weaken the institution? You think that if some changes are good then all changes must be good? Does that really make sense?
I feel the same sense of baffled confusion as I do when confronted with those that insist that women cannot be called to the priesthood--as if the Creator would be as silly to limit certain types of ministry based solely upon one's genital plumbing!
That's a different topic, but the answer is here if you want it.
Try as you might, you will not find Debbie does Dallas next to The Little Engine that Could.
The first is illegal. Ty again.
I'm sorry, did you just compare Jews to Klansmen, pedophiles, axe murders, and heroin addicts?
I've got it!
I've been reading everything from this blog entry here and from Jamie's original blog entry, trying to figure out what the actual communication problem is. If it was just on the level of religion or parenting or sexuality, this conversation might have died out a while ago.
But that didn't happen, mainly because no one's really working with truth here but rather belief - especially Lou's side but pretty much everyone else too, but also because of more basic disagreement concerning the neutrality or non-neutrality of information/media/communication/etc.
Since this is your blog and you're such a central person in this discussion, I'll use you, Lou, as the example, but there are many others who are guilty of this error as well, on both sides.
Lou seems to think that active provision of information is a prerequisite for a non-neutral information environment (you call it propaganda) and removal or absence of information provides a more neutral information environment (e.g. the presence of the book in question is propaganda, or a commenter giving you "the link to the publication of the Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns" is not neutral, from one of your latest comments).
Unfortunately, I think that at least some of the "disagree'ers" hold the opposite: It's better (defined as more fair, more neutral, more balanced) to actively make information on a topic accessible than to keep it inaccessible or even create avoidable barriers to access. Whether you agree or disagree with an idea, or more specifically, whether you agree/disagree with the idea of the idea's exposure to children, it is better to err on the side of making it too accessible than not accessible enough.
I have to state my probably obvious bias: I have to side with the "access is better than non-access" crowd. I'd rather (and would rather my children) have the option to decide for myself what's right or wrong, and not to have that taken away from me, or even hidden from me. And I think that history and human nature supports that judgment. Prejudiced attitudes seem to be borne of lack of information: we humans tend to form in groups, siultaneously forming OUTgroups or "others". Since we don't, by definition, communicate or associate with these outgroups, we have much less information about them and their practices, resulting in their residing in the "unknown". We tend to fear the unknown. And we tend to hate that which makes us fearful. Ergo, ignorance (i.e. lack of information) breeds hatred. Since hatred is bad, ignorance is bad too.
The moral of the story is then, books about homosexual marriage are better on the shelf than off.
Of course, I know what the response will be. As it has been mentioned several times already, we do make certain ideas inaccessible in public, on TV, in the library, and especially in front of our children. But I see that as more political than logical or even moral. Before libraries starting collection books on homosexuality, I can guarantee there were plenty of homosexual librarians and their supportive colleagues refraining from putting those books on the shelves simply because they knew that others wouldn't accept it, NOT because they thought it was best that way. They are now on the shelf, again, not because librarians think it's good and moral (which they certainly may) but rather because a significant portion of the user-base request it. It's politics and public opinion that are the deciding factors, not values. Values and personal feelings may play a role in those two but they don't have to. If necrophilia (to pick a rather disgusting example from earlier comments) where to suddenly become popular and open and accepted in 10% of the population, perhaps we would be seeing it in the children's room (again, ick...). We can't truly predict collection development practices of the future but we can certainly look to the past and see that that seems to be the trend: things we once thought were horrible and immoral are now acceptable (and vice versa). Library collections are not a mirror of eternal values (if such things exist) but of current appeal.
Does this make sense, or am I way off base here?
Notice that he won't comment on the fact that hetero/straight folks will also seek out anonymous sex. He just likes to clutch his little stereotypes of the world and hold them oh so tight.
The fact of the matter is, straight people are much more likely to molest kids than homosexual people.
See here.
I think the problem with your statement, Matthew, is that it's not a belief that access is better than non-access - the Constitution of the United States of America says so, in the first amendment. While it was certainly a belief at one time, access to information is now a Constitutional right, and has been since the 1700s. That should not be up for debate. What is up for debate is whether this is a case in which it is reasonable to restrict the first amendment rights of citizens who wish to see these books in libraries.
Lou wants to restrict my Constitutional rights on the basis that the bible says homosexuality is immoral, and that only his religious views should hold, because the oldest monotheistic religion in the world is on essentially the same moral standing as Klansmen, pedophiles, axe murderers, and heroin addicts. Such a view is, of course, ridiculous, and luckily, it does not hold up in libraries, as Jamie has shown. I am glad that people like Lou have no say over whether I get to keep my Constitutional rights, because he is the perfect example of the tyrannical majority, which is why the Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution in the first place. They were wise men, and it is because of their wisdom that this country is as great as it is.
Let freedom ring, and God bless.
What nonsense. The Founding Fathers would have made homosexual "marriage" legal if they intended for it to be.
The first is illegal. Ty again.
False.
Does this make sense
I don't think it does. It is very well-written, but not terribly sensible.
I'd rather (and would rather my children) have the option to decide for myself what's right or wrong, and not to have that taken away from me, or even hidden from me.
But here we are back at square one. Would you want porn in the children's section of the library? Would you want graphic violence in the children's section of the library? No.
The fact of the matter is, straight people are much more likely to molest kids than homosexual people.
Not true, and not close. Per capita homosexuals are far more likely.
But here we are back at square one. Would you want porn in the children's section of the library?
We are back at square one, but only because you're apparently too thick to realize that porn in the children's section is not legal, and keep throwing it in as a red herring.
Who brought up bestiality?
I think the book is intended to normalize gay marriage AND bestiality. It's about faggot hamsters. That's really sick and obviously shouldn't be in a library.
The fact of the matter is, straight people are much more likely to molest kids than homosexual people.
Not true, and not close. Per capita homosexuals are far more likely.
NAME YOUR SOURCE! NAME ANY LEGITIMATE STUDY! I named a source from a university. You have done nothing. It's obvious you have a grudge against homosexuals in general.
I don't. I just don't want to have to pretend they are married.
Start here and here. The problem with this type of research is that homosexual advocates try to skew the numbers by redefining their terms. It seems to me that any male who has willing sex with another male is homosexual. But homosexual activists don't see it that way. What cannot be denied is that:
"Research on the homosexual lifestyle confirms it is almost exclusively a youth-oriented culture," Baldwin wrote. "Very few gays exhibit preference for older men."
--
We are back at square one, but only because you're apparently too thick to realize that porn in the children's section is not legal
Is that the only reason that porn in the children's section is wrong? Because it's not legal? Why do you think it is not legal?
As an aside, can anyone verify that it's not legal? It is correct that certain material in the library is "not legal"? Is that a federal law? What types of material does this law include?
Look at your sources for homosexuality those last two articles you linked to. You can't even begin to say those sites are unbiased and will publish real studies that don't have a specific agenda in mind.
Again, I'll say, it's just really sad about your inability to see homosexuals as anything besides anonymous sex crazed and child molesting people. And to see heterosexuals as not engaging in this kind of behavior.
As an aside, can anyone verify that it's not legal? It is correct that certain material in the library is "not legal"? Is that a federal law? What types of material does this law include?
Let me make this simple for you. Can a ten-year-old walk into the 7-11 and buy Penthouse?
No.
Likewise, the library cannot provide adult materials to minors.
The definition of what types of materials fit this criteria are fairly well defined in case law.
You could look it up.
Lou,
I don’t want to impose my liberal views on you in this forum (I presume they would be as prejudicial as the accusations against your own views.) However I would like to respectfully point out that at my library (a small library in a conservative Christian community) we do have books on the KKK, murders (true crime is a very popular subject), Satanism, Nazism, drug addiction, prostitution, sexual aberrations, and all the world’s major religions. Because of the size of our library, all of the books that are considered non-fiction are shelved together (children’s, young adults’, and adults'). You will probably disagree with this scheme but here are many libraries across the country that are organized in this way (and even in most of those libraries that separate their collections the adult section is quite accessible to children.)
This is something for you and every other parent to keep in mind when accompanying your children (which I believe it is the parent’s responsibility to do—in my county it is our duty to call the authorities when we see a child under eight—the age group this books is directed at—unaccompanied by an adult). If that is not possible 100% of the time you (and all other parents) should examine all reading material (and other media) coming into your home for possible objectionable material and open up a dialogue with your children about what else they are being exposed to—it can only foster clarification of any confusion they may encounter when secular values of the world at large (or even at small) clash with your own.
senormedia: you're apparently too thick to realize that porn in the children's section is not legal
Lou: It is correct that certain material in the library is "not legal"?
senormedia: You could look it up.
Dumbass.
"What nonsense. The Founding Fathers would have made homosexual 'marriage' legal if they intended for it to be."
True. They also would have outlawed slavery, and given non-property-owning men the right to vote, and also women.
Instead, they gave us something better: the right to almost unfettered access to information, and to freedom of religious choice. They gave us the freedom to think for ourselves: to control our government, and not be controlled by it. These are far more valuable than an unchanging set of laws. It is these freedoms that instruct us that there needs to be a REALLY GOOD REASON to ban a book from the library. The fact that YOUR interpretation of the bible prohibits gay marriage, which is STILL legal in three states, is NOT a good enough reason to censor access to information about it.
So: maybe you didn't hear me the first time, but did you REALLY mean to compare the moral standing of Judaism to Klansmen, axe murderers, pedophiles and heroin addicts? Because I'm still waiting for some sort of jusification for that.
If you read my comments and concluded that I was "comparing the moral standing of Judaism to Klansmen" then there isn't much point in my responding. You probably won't be able to understand these comments any better than my original ones.
Reform Judaism represents a tiny percent of the population. There are more prisoners in this country than there are Reform Jews. The argument that homosexual propaganda belongs in the children's section of the public library because some members of an obscure group approve of homosexual "marriage" refutes itself.
Instead, they gave us something better: the right to almost unfettered access to information
Sound and fury. We have been discussing what the word "almost" means.
It is these freedoms that instruct us that there needs to be a REALLY GOOD REASON to ban a book from the library.
And we have one.
Posting "let freedom ring" may make you feel important, but surprisingly it doesn't actually change the nature of the issue at hand.
Maybe you missed this lesson in sixth grade, but the Constitution guarantees EVERYONE their rights, not just the majority. It doesn't matter how few non-Christians there are in the country - what matters is that YOU are not allowed to censor books from the library based on YOUR religious beliefs. You HAVE NOT provided a GOOD reason to ban such a book - the only reason you have provided is that YOUR religious interpretation of the bible says it is wrong. That DOES NOT overrule the rights of everyone else, especially since those marriages are LEGAL in three states. The Constitution of the United States of America says so. Full stop.
Sorry Lou, you've lost this battle. Gay marriage is legal in the US, and these books are not banned in libraries. I hope some day you learn the difference between opinions and facts, and between your beliefs and my rights.
Best of luck to you.
those marriages are LEGAL in three states.
That IS false EVEN if YOU type EVERY other WORD in CAPS.
You HAVE NOT provided a GOOD reason to ban such a book - the only reason you have provided is that YOUR religious interpretation of the bible says it is wrong.
Do me a favor. Search for the word "propaganda" in the thread. Tell me how many times it occurs.
Propaganda does not belong in the children's section of a public library. That is a good reason to remove the book, and that reason has been "provided" many times. What confuses you about that?
"The Constitution of the United States of America" does not say that the children's section of the public library must contain pornography, graphic depictions of beheadings, nor homosexual propaganda. Nowhere does the Constitution require that the children's section of the public library contain books for Reform Jews, homosexual "families", one-eyed midgets named Vinny, axe murderers, or neo-Nazis. I'm terribly sorry if you feel that deprives you of your constitutional rights, but if you think about it for a half a minute you will realize that it actually does not.
the "too long; didn't read" version of this thread:
Lou believes that his particular worldview is the only right one and everyone else should conform to it.
Lou believes that books that support his worldview should be allowed in the library, but books that do not are "propaganda" and should not.
Lou has yet to express a reason why this is so that does not reduce either to "a=a" or comparing books about homosexuality to books advocating satanism. This is because he has no arguments that do not rest upon the idea that his position is morally correct and everybody else is morally wrong.
""The Constitution of the United States of America" does not say that the children's section of the public library must contain pornography, graphic depictions of beheadings, nor homosexual propaganda. Nowhere does the Constitution require that the children's section of the public library contain books for Reform Jews, homosexual "families", one-eyed midgets named Vinny, axe murderers, or neo-Nazis."
you're right. It doesn't say it must contain these books.
but you know what?
it does say that it can contain these books.
fundamentally, what Lou is about here is the censorship of ideas. He's advocating that certain points of view (that two men can get married and that there's nothing wrong with that, for example) are wrong and should be bannable from the public library. They are, in fact, thoughtcrime.
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word false. False means not true. Gay marriage is legal in California, Massachusetts and New York. That is true. That is a fact. You may not like it, but saying that it is false does not make it false. It just makes you look silly.
Your definition of "propoganda," as has been pointed out numerous times (maybe you should read the thread) is broad enough to include any book that seeks to educate. "Propaganda is a deliberate attempt to shape perceptions or manipulate cognitions to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Yes, as are books on counting, reading, and bible stories. The fact that you disagree with the intent is not the difference between propoganda and not propoganda. You know how I know? Because YOUR definition of propoganda does not make a distinction between a "good" intent or a "bad" intent. All o fthos etypes of book attempt to "shape perceptions" to achieve the desired result of the propogandist.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding my point about the constitution. The constitution DOES say that your religious views do not override the laws of this country, and that your religious views are not enough to censor books. Gay marriage is legal in three states. Your religion does not allow them. That's fine. Your religion does not get to censor books from the library. THAT is what the constitution says. I think you know that. Gay people legally get married in this country. That alone should show you that there is not a universal condemnation of gay marriage as a moral wrong, unlike, say, pedophilia, axe murdering, heroin addiction, and the KKK. They are not equivalent in the eyes of the country, no matter how many times you equate them.
To say that your religious views should enable you to remove books from the children's room of the library that portray legal relationships in a child appropriate manner (i.e., no pictures of gay sex, or sex of any kind, for that matter) is simply ridiculous. The relationships themselves are not universally condemned as immoral. The relationships themselves are legal. Children do experience these relationships in their own families. They are not like pornography, which depict things that children SHOULD NOT be exposed to. Children are and should be exposed to marriages. Children are and, according to a significant percent of the population, should be exposed to gay marriages. You don't have to agree with that, or want your children exposed to them, just as I wouldn't want my children exposed to books like Veggie Tales at a young age. (You probably wouldn't want your kids exposed to Jewish, Buudhist or Muslim children's books either.) The way to do that is to monitor what they read, not to exclude every book from the library that YOU don't want YOUR children to be reading.
And, please note, if your answer to why Uncle Bobby's Wedding is propoganda and bible stories are not is "because one is right and the other is wrong," I am going to point out, again, that a) YOUR definition of propoganda does not make that distinction, and b) that is YOUR belief. YOUR belief is not enough to override MY belief. So if you don't have a better answer than that, you might want to think about whether you can come us with an answer that's based on reason, not beliefs.
Lou believes that books that support his worldview should be allowed in the library, but books that do not are "propaganda" and should not.
Even the librarian in question agrees that the book is propaganda. That's not the issue. But knowing that it's propaganda, I say the book should be removed.
Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word false. False means not true. Gay marriage is legal in California, Massachusetts and New York. That is true. That is a fact. You may not like it, but saying that it is false does not make it false. It just makes you look silly.
The fact that it is false makes it false. Dumbass.
All o fthos etypes of book attempt
???????
To say that your religious views should enable you to remove books from the children's room of the library
But, of course, I said no such thing. You are arguing against yourself. And losing.
"because one is right and the other is wrong,"
Who are you quoting?
Dumbass.
Me? I'm not the one too dim to understand well-established case law, nor to be able to look it up for myself.
The argument that homosexual propaganda belongs in the children's section of the public library because some members of an obscure group approve of homosexual "marriage" refutes itself.
Ad Populum (in reverse)
You lose.
The fact that it is false makes it false
Nice tautology.
You lose, again.
"The fact that it is false makes it false. Dumbass."
Um? Maybe you don't watch the news? Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, California and New York. Is there a reason you keep saying that that fact is false? Because if you're in a mental place where you're going to deny, you know, facts, then this is probably not a conversation worth having. And calling me a dumbass for stating a provable, and uncontested, fact makes you look like a... well, you know.
Read the first sentence.
Me?
Oh ya. You asserted that "porn in the children's section is not legal". When asked to back up your assertion, you said "look it up". You would have to work your way up to dumbass. "You lose" is not a thoughtful argument. Go troll elsewhere.
Maybe you should READ THE THREAD, Lou. "NY recognizes gay marriages, but does not yet perform them." Gay marriage is recognized in, and therefore part of the laws of, New York state. There are gay people who are, under the laws of this state, considered legally married. It is the third state to accept gay marriages. Gay people can be legally married (that's "married" the adjective, not the verb) in New York. We went through this days ago. And even if it weren't true, and only two states legally recognized gay marriage, the fact remains that gay marriage is legal, and your beliefs are not enough to have books on the subject banned from the children's room, your illogical ranting about "propoganda" notwithstanding.
Did you have anything to say about your definition of propoganda, aside from pretending to be unable to make sense of a minor typo? I'll make it very easy for you: "All o fthos etypes of book attempt..." = "All of those types of book attempt..."
Oh, and "because one is right and the other is wrong," was obviously not a quote. I was anticipating your argument, and since, if you made that argument, you would have been speaking, I put the statement in quotes, as is proper in English grammar. Would you care to respond to the point?
Maybe you should READ THE THREAD, Lou. "NY recognizes gay marriages, but does not yet perform them."
You said "Gay marriage is legal in California, Massachusetts and New York." That is... wait for it... FALSE.
your illogical ranting about "propoganda" notwithstanding.
If it were "illogical", you'd be able to provide a cogent reason why.
Oh, and "because one is right and the other is wrong," was obviously not a quote. I was anticipating your argument
Let me get this straight. You anticipated my response and then quoted me on what you thought I might say?
Would you care to respond to the point?
Ya, I'll defend a comment that you pretended I made. Good thinking.
Okay. If your method of debate is to ignore the cogent arguments and then claim I haven't made any, you're not worth talking to. I know it must be difficult to watch the world change around you and not be able to stop it, but if people who held your views could make actual arguments based on logic, maybe the world wouldn't be changing.
Best of luck to you.
>Oh ya. You asserted that "porn in the children's section is not legal". When asked to back up your assertion, you said "look it up".
Lou, that is so well established in case law that even a person of limited reasoning capabilities (say, someone names Lou) should have no trouble recognizing the validity of the statement.
Libraries don't cary porn in the children's section for exactly the same reason that 7-11 doesn't sell porn to minors.
Lou, did you delete my comment? I'm pretty certain I asked you to quote where Jamie had agreed the book you were talking about was propaganda, and now the comment is missing.
I covered that in my very first post. Looking through your comments, my only regret is that I didn't delete all of them.
If you read the thread, you will see that we talked at length about this notion that people who disapprove of homosexual "marriage" are "bigots". We talked about the difference between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage". We discussed whether every American in the 232 history of the nation was a "bigot". We talked about whether opposing marriage for kindergarteners, teenagers, hamsters, and baseball teams makes you a bigot. We talked about whether denying marriage to siblings is bigotry. We talked about whether denying marriage to polygamists or is bigotry.
Your contribution to the discussion?: "We call these people 'bigots'" with no explanation. You didn't read the thread and you aren't advancing the discussion. You missed the point.
We talked at length about how the children's section of the public library should not contain books about Klansmen, pedophiles, axe murderers, heroin addicts, or neo-Nazis. Your contribution?: "He's advocating that certain points of view are wrong and should be bannable from the public library." Thank you, Sherlock, but that was established long ago.
All of your posts are that way. You are like the guy who keeps posting "Libraries don't carry porn in the children's section for exactly the same reason that 7-11 doesn't sell porn to minors" but can't say what it is because it "is so well established in case law". If you aren't capable of reading the thread and contributing something rational to it then don't post.
If you aren't capable of reading the thread and contributing something rational to it then don't post.
Oh, that is so RICH!!! Dude, you made me laugh so hard when I read that.
Your entire premise is founded just upon your personal beliefs. You haven't given any reason other than "I said so" basically throughout this entire debate. Look, it's fine if you feel the way you do but don't go and try to push your belief systems on me and the rest of the public by wanting books removed from the public library just because you can't get past the idea of two gay people being married. You can try to claim it's to "protect the children" and so forth but that's just a load of bull (IMHO).
You know why I know that? People that have had children know that even if your kid got loose in the library and saw something that wasn't in the kid's section that wasn't appropriate for them that it wouldn't influence them for life. Kids beliefs are based on repetition of what they see and hear over time and the examples you set for them. Not just one book or event. They ask questions when they don't understand something. They don't just take a book at face value. Have you ever tried to read to a kid before? Seriously.
And the reason people think you're a bigot is because you have made multiple disparaging comments about the gay lifestyle without anything to back it up. All you've talked about is gay men at rest-stops. You've also insulted a gay marriage counselor. You know, there are many straight marriage counselors that aren't even married or in relationships. Are they bad too? It's your attitude towards homosexuals that makes people call you a bigot. It's not just because you are opposed to gay marriage.
You haven't given any reason other than "I said so"
Who are you quoting? And how could you possibly read this thread and conclude that I "haven't given any reason other than 'I said so'"? The reason that I have given over and over again is that it is propaganda. Please read the thread.
You can try to claim it's to "protect the children"
Who exactly are you quoting?
Kids beliefs are based on repetition of what they see and hear over time and the examples you set for them. Not just one book or event. They ask questions when they don't understand something.
Sometimes yes; sometimes no. The fact that it may not scar all kids for life is not a good reason to put the Mapplethorpe exhibit in the kiddie section next to the Dora books. You simply don't know that it won't affect a "kid's beliefs".
you have made multiple disparaging comments about the gay lifestyle without anything to back it up.
"Without anything to back it up"?!? You didn't read the thread. Read the thread before posting please.
there are many straight marriage counselors that aren't even married or in relationships. Are they bad too?
Is that the issue that we have been discussing? Whether they are "bad"? Please.
Dear God,
I know we don't talk like this. I haven't got the right to ask You anything, we both know that. But, if it can make any difference, please, hear my plea.
Please, have mercy on your son Lou and guide him in his path. He tries to be a good person, above all. He endures great grief in doing so, but still finds strength to continue because he believes such is a good man's burden. Facing offensively warped views of the real world, deeply misguided people, with only his faith and wit. Many would have become wicked and evil, Lou is only aggressive, but has a good heart.
Forgive him for his misdeeds against his fellows, for he believes those are a work of love. Love towards the children, man and woman couples, Your teachings and your Son. The good seed is already there, for love is the greatest gift you have bestowed upon us.
That he focus on hatred instead of love, on fear instead of compassion, on being on a higher moral ground than his peers, is to be expected, as his perceived mission is so demanding. When our weakness becomes unbearable, o Lord, we defend ourselves by attacking the weaker, the wrong, the different and the righteous all alike. In troubled times, we often forget Your very words and see ourselves as self-appointed judges of our kindred, because we then feel alone and responsible.
That is how the Enemy thrives upon our weaknesses, making man and boy mock, hurt and deride the example of virtue an adopting mother is in Your creation. Flesh is weak, and the Adversary works everyday to make us need to feel strong by turning against our brothers and sisters. Vanity, hatred and and sheer fear makes straight look bent, diversity look menacing, goodwill look sinful.
If I say 'forgive him', that must mean forgive us all, as we must learn to forgive one another, for none is free from these vices. Yet, Father, I mean forgive him, so that he may be blessed by learning about forgiving, caring, compassion. Forgive him, for his is a noble mission, and his troubled heart deserves peace and love. Let him partake of Your infinite love and discover charity. May he learn to trust the power of the Word, may he learn to bring Your love for those in need.
Hear this foolish, unbaptized, self-contradicting atheist, and let Lou know there's nothing to be afraid of, for You are with him.
Amen
That is how the Enemy thrives
No, this is how the Enemy thrives.
Lou franklin said...
That is how the Enemy thrives
No, this is how the Enemy thrives.
I'll play:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1184069711108980.xml&coll=1
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/31/preacher.freezer/
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2007/03_04/2007_03_27_McKenzie_PreacherArrested.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/combs/
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2007-12/msg00981.html
That's the first google page for "preacher sex abuse children."
Congratulations on your ability to use Google, but preachers stuffing their wives' bodies in freezers is hardly the most pressing issue of the day. We're talking about adults putting homosexual propaganda in the hands of unsuspecting children in order to normalize homosexuality. Yes, there are other problems in the world, and yes Google will help you find them if you type in the right keywords, but that doesn't make this problem go away.
Right now there are children being abused by the homosexuals who are being allowed to raise them. That is your fault. You, and others like you, put political correctness above the welfare of children and allowed it to happen. I don't understand why you don't know better.
I dare you to post this, Lou. Does this pretty much cover your definition of marriage?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/25/couple.charged.ap/index.html
But yeah, those darn homosexuals. They're all over the place abusing kids and ruining their lives.
I dare you to post this, Lou. Does this pretty much cover your definition of marriage?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/25/couple.charged.ap/index.html
But yeah, those darn homosexuals. They're all over the place abusing kids and ruining their lives.
*didn't read any of the comments*
It's a PARENTS job to censor what their children read. Don't like the book or it's message? Don't let your child read it. It's really that simple.
If you read the thread you would have read:
Your question implies that 100% of the time parents will accompany their kids to the library and read the book in advance of the kid. That is obviously not the case.
After reading Jamie's blog post, yours, and all comments, all I can say with complete certainty that none of these arguments matter.
While an undergraduate student, I attended a lecture given by poet bell hooks at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. Following her prepared comments, she responded to questions, and one of them-- and her answer-- serve to guide me whenever I encounter stalemates such as these. Someone asked her how, as a feminist, she was able to love, respect, or even merely tolerate her sexist father, and what advice she might offer to people who must daily live with others whose views are abhorrent and incomprehensible to them.
She seemed to pause for a moment and then calmly replied, "All I do is wait and hope. Because, eventually, he is going to die."
This perhaps seems harsh-- waiting for one's own father to die!-- but she went on to explain that waiting for their ideas to die allows one to fully love people with whom one so strongly disagrees. Eventually, sexism, racism, and homophobia (though I know Lou dislikes that neologism), will die out. With every passing generation, old stereotypes die off with the minds that contain them. Many strong conservative Christians speak of the wicked times in which we live, the rampant immorality, catastrophes and chaos; they feel increasingly surrounded by a world apart from themselves as they wait for the End Times.
I have wonderful news for the rest of us. They are increasingly surrounded, and their end times are coming. The combination of old religious moralities with science in the modern era is creating a hybrid- a growing plurality that favors social equality based on an individualism that is ever mindful of others, founded upon a love of all humankind.
You are not being propagandized, Lou. There is no need for that. Your ideas are just irrelevant, and becoming more irrelevant with every passing day as those sharing them cease to exist. All I have to do is wait and hope, in love.
It doesn't work that way. Of course wise people die, but meanwhile young people become old people. And with age comes wisdom.
Wow Lou. So to sum up, your position is that homosexuality is wrong because, um, it just IS. Oh, and anything to convince children of something in a book for them is just wrong. Is that it?
The problem is that you are not going to convince anyone not already convinced. What HARM is being done by the existence of homosexuality? If you can show that you may be able to convince some fence-sitters. I doubt you can but you're not going to get anywhere if you don't. Saying, "IT'S WRONG IT'S WRONG IT'S WRONG!!!" will just be met with "IT'S NOT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT!!!" ad infinitum. lol
And the vast majority of children's literature carries some 'sneaky' message like "the dentist isn't scary" or "don't hit people" or even just "reading is fun!" Propaganda is such a loaded word that it's not really appropriate to use unless you're talking about negative propaganda which brings us back to the first point: how it's bad in the first place.
Given your lack of real support for your position, I'm confused as to your motive. Are you just trying to stir up an issue? If so, bravo... Issues need to be talked about and worked on if we ever want to make progress. But if you're trying to just suppress the happiness of people who don't deserve it and trying to perpetuate the prejudice through continued ignorance of the issue then, for shame. That's not very neighbourly of you.
Post a Comment
<< Home