N.C. Parents upset over Homosexual Children's book

[bozack]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114526,00.html

WILMINGTON, N.C. ? The parents of an elementary school pupil are fuming over the book their daughter brought home from the school library: a children's story about a prince whose true love turns out to be another prince.

Michael Hartsell said he and his wife, Tonya, first became worried about "King & King" (search) when the story related how a queen told her stubbornly single son she had already been married twice at his age.

The couple, who say they read with their daughter Olivia every weeknight before bed, went from surprise to disbelief when the leading character, Prince Bertie, waves off a bevy of eligible princes before falling for Prince Lee.

The book ends with the princes marrying and sharing a kiss.

"I was flabbergasted," Hartsell said. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

The 32-page book, by Dutch writers Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland, was translated and published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press (search) of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published.

The publisher's Web site lists the books as intended for readers age 6 and up.

A message left after business hours Wednesday at the company's headquarters was not immediately returned.

Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School (search), said she ordered the book in 2002 and it has been on the library's shelves since early last year.

The Hartsells can't believe the book was ever there, let alone checked out by a first-grader. They want to make sure it doesn't happen again, and say they are keeping the book until they get assurances it won't be circulated to other pupils.

Hawley said that puts the school in a difficult position, because librarians are champions of intellectual freedom and if a book is to be removed, it will have to be discussed.

All New Hanover County schools have a committee for reviewing books after questions of appropriateness come up, and the Hartsells must make a written complaint and return the book for the committee to review, she said.

The Hartsells said they intend to file a complaint soon, and are considering transferring Olivia to another school, Tonya Hartsell said.

Hawley said she couldn't comment on the book's appropriateness because she hadn't seen it and wouldn't want to prejudice any review. She declined to say whether she knowingly selected a book on gay marriage, saying she used numerous selection guides to help choose material for the school's diverse community of students, teachers and partners.

"We have a lot of diversity in our schools," said Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal. "What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing."

Thoughts.....

 

[EXman]

the educator that allowed that into the liabrary should be fired. There is nothing sexual about a young child. Sicko. the writer should be strung up by their privates.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

sorry was getting a little upset!

 

[daniel1113]

Whatever happened to tolerance? Of course, that wasn't enough for the gay agenda...

 

[alchemize]

I'm fine with this book, as long as they are OK with some extreme right wing book that advocates sterilization of homosexuals and lesbians because they are "evil and immoral". If elementary school is the point where we begin the brainwashing, let's be representative.

 

[conjur]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1582461139/qid=1079629684/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/103-6831320-5514234?v=glance&s=books

Join newlyweds King Lee and King Bertie on their journey into the noisy jungle. The kings are greeted by wild animal families, but the royal travelers suspect that something more significant awaits them in the trees. King & King soon discover that there?s no adventure more wonderful than starting a family of their own.


Wow...the right-wing bigots are in an uproar up here!

 

[alchemize]

Wow...the right-wing bigots are in an uproar up here!

I assume you are referring to bugs. His comments were bigoted.

 

[CaptnKirk]

That doulble-ly sucks.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I'm fine with this book, as long as they are OK with some extreme right wing book that advocates sterilization of homosexuals and lesbians because they are "evil and immoral". If elementary school is the point where we begin the brainwashing, let's be representative.

I understand your opinion on this, but is it really brainwashing? Perhaps if we don't accept this book then we must also not allow any books that portray interracial relations? Yes, society as a whole is still deciding whether gay marriage is acceptable or not, but it has already accepted homosexuality itself. Its not such a big deal if one book in a school library acknowledges that.

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
buncha homos trying to pervert our children. This is where I draw the line. Tolerance ends here. Time to crack some homos skulls.

The only homo who needs his skull cracked is good ol' Homo neanderthalensis here.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

 

[alchemize]

I understand your opinion on this, but is it really brainwashing? Perhaps if we don't accept this book then we must also not allow any books that portray interracial relations? Yes, society as a whole is still deciding whether gay marriage is acceptable or not, but it has already accepted homosexuality itself. Its not such a big deal if one book in a school library acknowledges that.

What is the difference? We've proven that genetically, you cannot control your race. Been proven for quite a while now.

My issue is that this clearly is not a children's book written that just happens to include 2 princes who fall in love. It is a political statement and a tool to attempt to influence children. Let the children decide when they come of age.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We have to defend our children from these perverts. Alot of responsible parents have pulled their kids out of public schools and homeschool them.
This allows them to raise their kids free from the gay agenda being forced on their kids. Unfortunately some parents can't afford to do this. That doesn;t mean we have to sit back and accept whatever those homos try to force on our kids.Give them an inch they take a mile. Well theyve gone too far. No more gay rights no more nothing. We have to oppose even homosexuality's very existence to keep this away from our kids. A few smart people in Tennessee realise this.

You were born about 3000 years too late.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I understand your opinion on this, but is it really brainwashing? Perhaps if we don't accept this book then we must also not allow any books that portray interracial relations? Yes, society as a whole is still deciding whether gay marriage is acceptable or not, but it has already accepted homosexuality itself. Its not such a big deal if one book in a school library acknowledges that.

What is the difference? We've proven that genetically, you cannot control your race. Been proven for quite a while now. My issue is that this clearly is not a children's book written that just happens to include 2 princes who fall in love. It is a political statement and a tool to attempt to influence children. Let the children decide when they come of age.

Well, as far as I'm aware, the juries still out over whether you can control your sexuality or not, but then, genetically, theres nothing that makes you want to 'advocate sterilization of homosexuals' so I think my comparison stands.
And while I agree that this book sounds like it has much of the political statement about it, since I haven't read it, it equally might just be a book for kids that happens to have two gay characters.

Since homosexuals exist, and are fairly well accepted by society, should we really be trying to pretend to children that they do not? When does a child come of age? Is it still considered to be 21? Are you saying we should deny the existance of homosexuality till children are 21? That's preposterous.

Merely telling a child that homosexuals exist isn't going to turn them gay. If you want an analogy, how about this; some forms of christians do not believe that it is ethical to baptise someone until they can make an informed decision - until they come of age, in other words. This seems like a very logical idea. It doesn't mean that they deny the existance of Christianity until then though.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We have to defend our children from these perverts. Alot of responsible parents have pulled their kids out of public schools and homeschool them.
This allows them to raise their kids free from the gay agenda being forced on their kids. Unfortunately some parents can't afford to do this. That doesn;t mean we have to sit back and accept whatever those homos try to force on our kids.Give them an inch they take a mile. Well theyve gone too far. No more gay rights no more nothing. We have to oppose even homosexuality's very existence to keep this away from our kids. A few smart people in Tennessee realise this.

Your a POS. jacka**.

Anyway people don't pull their children out of the public school systems because of the homosexuals, as it mostly has to do with religious beliefs. Also, what gay agenda are you talking about? So your telling me that public schools are forcing children to believe in that their is only one lifestyle and that's the homosexual lifestyle?

Anyway I'll restate I what I said. Your an ignorant POS idiot who should be banned from these forums. The homosexuals that I know are educated and very very successful. Something your probably not.

Also, thank god I don't live down in Tennessee and I can't wait until the Supreme Court kills the bill.

 

[Jmman]

This is only the beginning. Eventually, sex with animals etc will be accepted also. I expect to see sex education classes cover bestiality within the next 20 years. Mark my words.......

 

[BugsBunny1078]

OK Jmman consider them marked.

 

[bozack]

Merely telling a child that homosexuals exist isn't going to turn them gay

Maybe not, but putting same sex relations in more of a positive light might make people, especially younger more willing to experiment with those of the same sex....didn't someone quote that something like 50% of the population generally has bisexual tendencies...wouldn't the urge to act on said tendences only increase with the greater acceptance of homosexuality? and if so is this something we would want?

personally I say no.

If the parents can know the content of this book and choose that it is suitable for their child to read then that is one thing, however in this case the child took the book out and brought it home....

what does conjur love to say?? your morals end where my rights begin? what about the rights of these parents who don't want their child at such an age to learn this?....

 

[BugsBunny1078]

 

[alchemize]

Well, as far as I'm aware, the juries still out over whether you can control your sexuality or not, but then, genetically, theres nothing that makes you want to 'advocate sterilization of homosexuals' so I think my comparison stands.

First, I don't advocate that. I was only providing an example. Allow me to elaborate.

IF homosexuality is genetic, then in theory homosexuals have no choice. They should have the same rights as any other class of citizen that has a genetic mutation, such as midgets/dwarfs, the mentally retarded, etc. Of course, some day medicine will provide a way to "cure" it then. If a mother has a right to terminate pregnancy, then she also has a right to cure any genetic mutations that exist in the fetus.

IF homosexuality is genetic, your comparison stands. If it is not, then it does not because it is a behavior.

And while I agree that this book sounds like it has much of the political statement about it, since I haven't read it, it equally might just be a book for kids that happens to have two gay characters.

Since homosexuals exist, and are fairly well accepted by society, should we really be trying to pretend to children that they do not?

No, I don't think we should pretend they do not. Homosexuals were not traditionally accepted by society, but if now they are, then we should also tolerate books that discuss incest, polygamy and bestiality. All behaviors, not genetics. Just because they are not accepted now, doesn't mean we won't become enlightened and they will be soon.

When does a child come of age? Is it still considered to be 21? Are you saying we should deny the existance of homosexuality till children are 21? That's preposterous.

IMO a child comes of age when he/she reaches puberty, or has the intellect to understand reproduction. I'd prefer to explain normal sexuality to my child first, then abnormal sexuality. Not both all at once. Unless, of course, homosexuality is genetic, and not behavior.

Merely telling a child that homosexuals exist isn't going to turn them gay. If you want an analogy, how about this; some forms of christians do not believe that it is ethical to baptise someone until they can make an informed decision - until they come of age, in other words. This seems like a very logical idea. It doesn't mean that they deny the existance of Christianity until then though.

I never said it would turn them gay. In fact, if homosexuality is genetic, then that would be impossible, because heterosexuality is also genetic.

Once again, if homosexuality is by choice and is a behavior and not genetic, then that changes the whole argument, doesn't it?

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: bozack

Merely telling a child that homosexuals exist isn't going to turn them gay

Maybe not, but putting same sex relations in more of a positive light might make people, especially younger more willing to experiment with those of the same sex....didn't someone quote that something like 50% of the population generally has bisexual tendencies...wouldn't the urge to act on said tendences only increase with the greater acceptance of homosexuality? and if so is this something we would want? personally I say no. If the parents can know the content of this book and choose that it is suitable for their child to read then that is one thing, however in this case the child took the book out and brought it home.... what does conjur love to say?? your morals end where my rights begin? what about the rights of these parents who don't want their child at such an age to learn this?....

I'm not sure I buy the 50% of the population having bisexual tendencies line, but nevermind. Certainly parents have the right to teach their children what they want (within obvious boundries), but a parent should not expect the rest of the world to hide from their children.

If you don't want your child to learn that there are gay people, then, much as if you don't want your child to learn that there are blond people, or black people, or whatever, then you'll have to keep your child in your house till he's 18. Teach your child what you want, but if you expect the rest of the world to hide themselves in case your child sees, then you are impinging on their rights.

 

[tec699]

Bugs..

I'm not gay and why would you get so worked up about this anyway. I don't care what anyone does on their spare time and I don't care. You should have acceptance for people who engage in different lifestyles. This is what makes America the greatest nation in the world.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078

Originally posted by: tec699

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
We have to defend our children from these perverts. Alot of responsible parents have pulled their kids out of public schools and homeschool them.
This allows them to raise their kids free from the gay agenda being forced on their kids. Unfortunately some parents can't afford to do this. That doesn;t mean we have to sit back and accept whatever those homos try to force on our kids.Give them an inch they take a mile. Well theyve gone too far. No more gay rights no more nothing. We have to oppose even homosexuality's very existence to keep this away from our kids. A few smart people in Tennessee realise this.

Your a POS. jacka**.

Anyway people don't pull their children out of the public school systems because of the homosexuals, as it mostly has to do with religious beliefs. Also, what gay agenda are you talking about? So your telling me that public schools are forcing children to believe in that their is only one lifestyle and that's the homosexual lifestyle?

Anyway I'll restate I what I said. Your an ignorant POS idiot who should be banned from these forums. The homosexuals that I know are educated and very very successful. Something your probably not.

Also, thank god I don't live down in Tennessee and I can't wait until the Supreme Court kills the bill.

Apparently they don't want you down in Tennessee. The gay agenda is trying to teach our kids while still in school that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.
It is not an acceptable lifestyle. When will you bigots stop trying to shove it onto everyone else?
Try to consider other peoples beliefs. We don't want you teaching that crap to our kids. [We are not forcing our agenda on your kids.

OMG! The irony!!!

Ow! That hurt it hit me so hard!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: dpm


I'm not sure I buy the 50% of the population having bisexual tendencies line, but nevermind. Certainly parents have the right to teach their children what they want (within obvious boundries), but a parent should not expect the rest of the world to hide from their children.

If you don't want your child to learn that there are gay people, then, much as if you don't want your child to learn that there are blond people, or black people, or whatever, then you'll have to keep your child in your house till he's 18. Teach your child what you want, but if you expect the rest of the world to hide themselves in case your child sees, then you are impinging on their rights.

This is a tricky situation no doubt DPM as how do you regulate such a thing?

These parents don't want their child to go out and be able take a book from the library that seems cutsie on the cover, yet conveys a socio political message they don't agree with on the inside...

Where is conjur now? saying that your morals end where my rights begin? where are the rights of these parents? this is essentially a moral belief being pushed on a child, plain and simple.

The child is too young to know any better...

Honestly I don't know how they could keep this from happening again unless each parent visits each library, scans all of the children's books and determines what they do and do not want their kids to read...

should be interesting.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Well, as far as I'm aware, the juries still out over whether you can control your sexuality or not, but then, genetically, theres nothing that makes you want to 'advocate sterilization of homosexuals' so I think my comparison stands.

First, I don't advocate that. I was only providing an example.

I understand, and I don't advocate banning books portraying interracial couples - we were both using exagerated examples to expound our points. Fair enough.

Allow me to elaborate. IF homosexuality is genetic, then in theory homosexuals have no choice. They should have the same rights as any other class of citizen that has a genetic mutation, such as midgets/dwarfs, the mentally retarded, etc. Of course, some day medicine will provide a way to "cure" it then. If a mother has a right to terminate pregnancy, then she also has a right to cure any genetic mutations that exist in the fetus. IF homosexuality is genetic, your comparison stands. If it is not, then it does not because it is a behavior.

Firstly, I'm not convinced that homosexuality is a genetic behaviour, nor am I convinced that this is the only standard on which it should be judged.
But, anyway, Um. you might want to watch your perjorative language and insinuations. Classing a supposed genetically based homosexuality with only "midgets/dwarfs, the mentally retarded" is a false and misleading comparison. After all, having blue eyes is a genetic mutation, as is being white or black. By this logic people with redhair have a genetic mutation, which should be cured, and a mother should have the right to 'cure' redheadedness in a fetus. Replace 'redhair' with 'blue eyes' or 'black skin' according to taste.

And while I agree that this book sounds like it has much of the political statement about it, since I haven't read it, it equally might just be a book for kids that happens to have two gay characters. Since homosexuals exist, and are fairly well accepted by society, should we really be trying to pretend to children that they do not?

No, I don't think we should pretend they do not. Homosexuals were not traditionally accepted by society, but if now they are, then we should also tolerate books that discuss incest, polygamy and bestiality. All behaviors, not genetics. Just because they are not accepted now, doesn't mean we won't become enlightened and they will be soon.

Well, homosexuality has sometimes been accepted by societies and sometimes not, but the point is that today it is, and incest, polygamy and bestiality are not. Again, are we not to tolerate books that portray interracial relationships because they were not traditionally accepted by society? Or does accepting them mean we have to also tolerate books that discuss incest, polygamy and bestiality? No matter how enlightened we may become, the fact of the matter is that today both interracial relationships and homosexual relationships are accepted, and incest etc is not.

When does a child come of age? Is it still considered to be 21? Are you saying we should deny the existance of homosexuality till children are 21? That's preposterous.

IMO a child comes of age when he/she reaches puberty, or has the intellect to understand reproduction. I'd prefer to explain normal sexuality to my child first, then abnormal sexuality. Not both all at once. Unless, of course, homosexuality is genetic, and not behavior.

Thats fine, and you can explain sexuality to your child when and how you wish. But, before then, how do you explain couples? What about all the books that feature a prince and a princess? Should they be banned because they show sexuality? Of course not! Its not like these books are overtly sexual. Showing that couples exist isn't the same as providing a sex manual

Merely telling a child that homosexuals exist isn't going to turn them gay. If you want an analogy, how about this; some forms of christians do not believe that it is ethical to baptise someone until they can make an informed decision - until they come of age, in other words. This seems like a very logical idea. It doesn't mean that they deny the existance of Christianity until then though.

I never said it would turn them gay. In fact, if homosexuality is genetic, then that would be impossible, because heterosexuality is also genetic. Once again, if homosexuality is by choice and is a behavior and not genetic, then that changes the whole argument, doesn't it?

 

[alchemize]

Firstly, I'm not convinced that homosexuality is a genetic behaviour, nor am I convinced that this is the only standard on which it should be judged.
But, anyway, Um. you might want to watch your perjorative language and insinuations. Classing a supposed genetically based homosexuality with only "midgets/dwarfs, the mentally retarded" is a false and misleading comparison. After all, having blue eyes is a genetic mutation, as is being white or black. By this logic people with redhair have a genetic mutation, which should be cured, and a mother should have the right to 'cure' redheadedness in a fetus. Replace 'redhair' with 'blue eyes' or 'black skin' according to taste.

I agree that your examples are valid also. I was trying to represent generally considered "negative" genetic mutations, although many would disagree. They certainly represent being outside the norm, as does homosexuality, if it is genetic.

Well, homosexuality has sometimes been accepted by societies and sometimes not, but the point is that today it is, and incest, polygamy and bestiality are not. Again, are we not to tolerate books that portray interracial relationships because they were not traditionally accepted by society? Or does accepting them mean we have to also tolerate books that discuss incest, polygamy and bestiality? No matter how enlightened we may become, the fact of the matter is that today both interracial relationships and homosexual relationships are accepted, and incest etc is not.

You keep going back to interracial, which then assumes genetics. If being gay is genetic, and the others are not, then no we don't need those others. But if it is behavior based, then yes we should not grant inalienable rights to some behaviors and not to others.

Thats fine, and you can explain sexuality to your child when and how you wish. But, before then, how do you explain couples? What about all the books that feature a prince and a princess? Should they be banned because they show sexuality? Of course not! Its not like these books are overtly sexual. Showing that couples exist isn't the same as providing a sex manual

I'm sounding like a broken record If we can accept that being heterosexual is the genetic "norm and not behavior-based (which I'm pretty sure has been proven at this point, given it's tendency in nature), then it should be the norm we teach. If being gay is also genetic, then I don't have a problem with teaching that also. Of course, that opens the pandora's box that I previously referred to.