OK Lawmakers Vote to Restrict Access to Homosexual-Themed Children’s Books

Brian says:

HR1039
The text is here (RTF file). It’s a good rule to never form an opinion about legislation or research based on news reports.

I’m not sure what “memorialize” means, but it doesn’t look like this thing would really have any legal force at all. (Disclaimer: IANAL) The resolution certainly doesn’t indicate what would make a book “homosexually themed.”

I mean, I’ve always thought that Kevin Henkes’ Chester’s Way is a homosexually themed book, yet it’s a delightful and appropriate read for little kids.

Brian says:

Re:ugh, I listened
Rather than join in the chorus of people saying that Greg doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’m going to say that *I* don’t know what Greg’s talking about.

if a child is born with a sexuality that would be considered inactive or ambivalent, the parent is going to want to encourage them to adopt the sexuality that matches the sex organs they were born with (imagine that). That means avoiding materials that bring that sexuality into question. When the child is 18 they can make the their own choice but poll every parent, conservative or liberal, as to how they would prefer to raise their child, hetero or homo, and they are all going to say hetero.

I don’t know whether there’s any research which delivers the same results as Greg’s hypothetical poll, but I’m trying to raise my kid to be an intelligent, creative, and compassionate person, and sexual orientation isn’t a concern. So I don’t know where he gets his assumption about “every parent.”

In addition, I have no idea what raising a child hetero or homo entails. My wife and I sometimes watch Judy Garland movies when our kid’s in the room, and I own a guitar which looks very much like the one Melissa Etheredge played at the Grammy Awards … does that constitute gay childrearing? Anyway, Greg’s own logic dictates that pretty much every gay person was raised to be heterosexual, so a lot of folks ain’t doin’ it right, apparently.

I also don’t understand what books which acknowledge the existence of gay people and families have to do with bringing a youngster’s sexual orientation into question. When young Jacob realizes he wants to kiss cute little Michael in the 2nd row, now, that might get those questions churning. I suspect that many parents who say they want to “protect” their kids from books with “inappropriate themes” really want to protect themselves from having to talk with their kids about issues concerning sex and relationships when the *kids* want to talk about those things. (I’ll admit that I’m saying this partly based on my own discomfort when I was asked during a commercial break, “Dad, what’s Tampax Pearl for?”)

Brian says:

Re:ugh, I listened

Couple things, if Jacob was your son and he asked why he wanted to kiss Michael what would you tell him?

“Go ask your mother.” Seriously, I’m not sure what I’d say, but don’t you think that this “why?” question would indicate that some external forces — i.e., socialization that gay=bad — have been at work? That is, Jacob is really seeking confirmation that he’s not a bad person. There’d need to be Q&A, not just me “telling” him something. I suspect that my main (and unspoken) concern would be that my kid not get the crap continually beaten out of him, or worse, for the remainder of his youth.

We just had an incident here in Mass where a father was arrested because he was upset that they were teaching the issue of homosexuality to his child in 1st grade.

I’m not sure that’s an accurate description of the incident. A book with a shocking and outrageous presentation of the “issue of homosexuality” was sent home as an option for parents to share with their children. [A lesbian is washing a dog! A gay man is making dinner! These homosexuals are behaving like normal people! Will the horrors never cease?] It looks quite a bit like this guy got himself arrested as a publicity stunt for an activist group. He asked the school to promise something impossible — along the lines that his kid wouldn’t be exposed to even spontaneous talk about homosexuality (including, apparently, the factual observation that families with same-sex parents exist) — and the school wouldn’t agree. So he wouldn’t leave and let himself be arrested for tresspassing, with his wife taking pictures that went up on the group’s website.

Yes or no, do you want a book in the picture book section titled “Daddy’s Roommate Goes Dress Shopping”? (And for the record I don’t consider that hyperbole)

I’d have to see the book first. If it’s like a lot of “diversity” books, it would probably be a piece of crap. But it just might be entertaining and well-done. The title’s pretty funny. I do guarantee you that by the end of the year, hundreds of libraries in the U.S. will have a critically acclaimed, animated family film on DVD which features a transgendered (though non-human) character. And fart jokes.

You say I think most gays were raised heterosexual but in fact I don’t believe that. The fact is I don’t know about ‘most’. Human nature is pretty diverse.

Well, I don’t know what you think, but you did say:

Homosexuals cannot have children, its one of the problems with being homosexual. Its also one of the reasons why there’s more to the issue than just religion. Even an atheist would not want their child to be gay because it would mean an end of their family line. …
When the child is 18 they can make the their own choice but poll every parent, conservative or liberal, as to how they would prefer to raise their child, hetero or homo, and they are all going to say hetero.

If I was wrong to read into that the implication that just about all people (including gays) are raised straight (again, whatever that means, since I still have no idea), I apologize. Now, regarding …

Also think about the discussion so far, nobody wants to say or define what is homosexuality. Which means if you do take the time to talk to your child about the issue and what you tell them doesn’t conform with whatever is PC at the moment then you are going to be considered a hater. The more vague they can keep the discussion the more they can just say that those who disagree are just religous fanatics.

… Don’t you think that the OK House Resolution would’ve been a great place to see a definition of what a “homosexually themed” book is? What’s your theory on why the OK House kept things so vague?