The book "And Tango Makes Three" has been removed from a school library in Virgina. Supporters of the book say it's removal is CENSORSHIP.
Well DUH... you Damn well better believe it is CENSORSHIP. And I'll fight with all I have to for the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to CENSOR what my child is expose to. Any parent that doesn't is not a fit parent.
Children simply do not need to be exposed to gay propaganda like this. I bet the other books in the library are all censored and age appropriate. Just because this is a cute illustrated story about a baby penguins doesn't make it age appropriate. I can all but garantee you that it was written with the intent to teach children that gay couples raising children is "normal" and "natural" and "acceptable".
This is the one area I will not compromise on. Gay Marriage is fine with me as long as the people vote for it and a court doesn't force it on us. Protection for gays in the work force, fine with me as long the the gay person isn't causing the business to loose customers. Gays in the Military, fine with me as long as codes of behavior are still enforced.
But Gay's adopting children? Absolutely NOT. Children can only be created by a male and female parent and I think they should only be raised by male and female parents. Adoption is not a right, it is a privilege and society has every right to set rules and conditions and to "pass judgment" on who can and who cannot adopt a child. Just like parents have the right to pass judgment on (aka CENSOR) what books their children should be exposed to.
The only possible exception to this is when one member of the gay couple is also the biological parent of the child. The state should never take a child away from his/her biological parent unless actual abuse is taking place. In this case, the partner of the child's biological parent should be given some parental rights to give the child a semblance of the stability of a two-parent household.
I don't know if "Tango" was related to one of the male penguin raising it, but it doesn't matter. Children are no capable of drawing that subtle distinction and should not be exposed to this stuff at their age. period.
FOXNews.com - Children's Book About Same-Sex Penguin Couple Causes Flap in Virginia - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Same-Sex Penguin Book Censored
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Here is a hypothetical which my wife (a religious conservative) and I have discussed often. What if there is a gay couple who want to adopt a baby who is the child of someone terrible like a crack addict? The gay parents would certainly provide a better environment than the crack addict ( and might even provide a better environment than some government-run child services facility). Also, if the people can decide who can adopt, what if in Mass they want to pass a gay-adoption amendment?
By "in Mass", I meant as in Massachusetts. A very liberal state where a gay-adoption amendment could pass.
You write: "And I'll fight with all I have to for the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to CENSOR what my child is expose to." Except for one thing -- by forcing the library to remove the book, you're also censoring what MY child is exposed to. You have no right to decide what MY child can or cannot read. Feel free to censor your kids, but keep your hands off of our public library -- mmmkay?
Modemac,
I disagree. As far the libraries in the public elementary schools are concerned, I think the "lowest common denominator" must rule. If YOU want your child to read this book then buy it yourself or get it from a public library. The School library must be a subset of the books acceptable to a vast majority (90%+) of parents.
Look at it this way. You are able to correct what you think is a mistake if your child is not allowed to read this book at school by letting them read it at home. I, on the other hand, am not able to undo the damage caused if my child reads this book at school. They can't "unread" it at home.
Ken,
[gay parents] "might" even provide a better environment than some government-run child services facility"
Since this is a hypothetical question you should be able to state which is better.
If the gay-parents are better, then we need to work on our government run child service facilities. Or even have privately run facilities. Because I firmly believe that a well run orphanage or foster parent system is better than placing the child with a gay couple.
You did not provide an answer to the hypothetical (crack addict vs. gay parents). You also didn't answer the question regarding if the people want gay adoption? You said "Adoption is not a right, it is a privilege and society has every right to set rules and conditions and to "pass judgment" on who can and who cannot adopt a child." What if the people decide its fine for gays to adopt?
And good luck getting the government to do something right.
I think I did indirectly answer both of those questions.
If the "crack addict" is a bad enough parent to warrant the state removing the child from the situation (and that is a separate debate), and the other parent or family members are also unable to take responsibility for the child. Then the state should take custody of the child. Then as I said a "well run orphanage or foster parent system is better than placing the child with a gay couple."
As far as allowing gay adoption I clearly said that "society has every right to set rules and conditions ...on who can and who cannot adopt a child". That would be an untrue statement if I really thought society was only able to set the rules I agree with.
And this brings up the REAL issue in my mind. This isn't about "gay-this" or "gay-that", it's about society being able to set rules that a minority of people disagrees with. Or in other words, this is about the concept of "majority rule". We're so "minority consciouses" right now that the "majority" is actually loosing control of society.
Neither Marriage nor Adoption are constitutionally protected rights. So people that disagree with the current rules should either
A - Accept it
B - Work to convince a majority of people to change the rules.
But going to court to get a few judges to read some "new" right into in the constitution is very dangerous in my opinion.
You make some excellent points. I was just curious as to your position on those specific scenarios which I mentioned. I also concur with your following point where you write "But going to court to get a few judges to read some "new" right into in the constitution is very dangerous in my opinion."
I agree that "legislating from the bench" is VERY dangerous.
By the way, great discussion.
Post a Comment