Closed minded fools?  You're joking right?  (That was rhetorical, I read your whole post.)

Just because you promote homosexuality, doesn't mean that they should, or that they would even want to.  How do you know they're such an evil gay-hating corporation?  What if they just don't even want to get in the middle of your agenda?

From a PURELY financial standpoint, how many angry letters are they going to get from the mostly straight people, who think the homosexual agenda doesn't belong in schools?  How many are going to complain about the non-inclusion of ONE BOOK?

To read/answer these complaints, it costs them money.  They have to pay someone to go through all of the complaints.  So...  If you're going to get millions of complaints, or thousands of complaints, which would you prefer, if it was your company, and your bottom line?  Do you complain when prices go up?

All they're doing is running a business in a way that makes sense, and money.  What's the big deal?  It doesn't fit the gay agenda?

Paul, by your own logic, you yourself shouldn't have the right to an opinion.

I don't care wether or not they promote LGBT stuff, but they are going out of there way to cover it up.  It would be cheaper in the first place for them to just leave it a lone.

How do I have no right to an opinion?  The people who I would suppress are violent, bigoted people.

Do you honestly think they read all the complaints?  They check what the complaint is about, and how many of them they get.  No company goes through every single complaint they ever get.

All they do is check the subject and add a tally to a excel sheet.

Mr. Hooper - I agree with some of what you have said (Scholastic is a for-profit corporation and is going to do whatever it takes to make money and avoid controversy), but I disagree with this whole "homosexual agenda" and "gay agenda" angle you've taken. As philosopher Lewis Black puts it (paraphrasing), it's not like homosexuals are driving about the country, bursting into people's homes, and engaging in intercourse in front of people so as to ruin the American family.

I think it's also worth noting that Scholastic has the U.S distribution rights to the Harry Potter series, which has been frequently condemned by the religious right because of "witchcraft." Scholastic seems to brush off the complaints and criticism they get from that and do just fine.

Jamison wrote: "From a PURELY financial standpoint, how many angry letters are they going to get from the mostly straight people, who think the homosexual agenda doesn't belong in schools?"

Does that mean that my son who has two mothers does not belong in schools?  Does he have to hide the fact that he has two moms?  Should I coach him to make it a secret?  Or maybe it would be easier if the schools just forced me to take him out and homeschool him so that the "homosexual agenda" isn't present in the schools? 

Homes with two moms and homes with two dads HAPPEN.  They are HAPPENING.  It can't be stopped and it is the reality that kids have, and that their friends see.  Get over it.

"The people who I would suppress are violent, bigoted people."

I might not like your opinion, but I will always stand up for your right to have (and utilize) one.

I would disagree about just checking the subject line and tallying a spreadsheet, although some companies do just that...  This company deals with children.  If you want to see someone go from reasonable to crazy in about 0.0001 seconds, mess with their kid!  That's what this company has to deal with.  They have to walk a very fine line, and it will NEVER please everyone.

Mr. Nicolson  ---  Profit vs. controversy.  Harry Potter is going to make them millions (if not tens of millions.)

Melissa --  What exactly does corporate profit motive have to do with you being gay?

You should reread my statement, not just the part you quoted.  There was a comparison being made about profit vs. controversy.

Same thing I would do for yours.

I know that it is impossible to please everyone.  What I care about is that they chose to discriminate against us, who haven't done anything, rather than piss of a bunch of assholes, who are gunna be pissed off anyway.

It would be extremely corporately profitable if all the books were made by slaves and all our crops were harvested by slaves as well, but that does not mean that it is acceptable to own slaves.  Corporate profitability is not the only measure of right vs. wrong in America or the world today.   If Scholastic Book Clubs are allowed to be in my child's school then they need to be fair and good citizens to the audience they serve.   That audience includes my child who has two mothers. 

Schools are not allowed to bring advertisers (IE people out to make money off of our children) into the schools.  Scholastic is allowed to come in because they bring something of value to the children they serve (books), but if they bring their anti-gay agenda into a school that serves all kinds of kids, then they should not be allowed to be there as they are no longer bringing somethig of value in.  The schools get to, and need to, decide who has something valuable to bring to the table, thus overriding the rules about advertising to kids.  It works both ways doesn't it?

Mr. hooper...

Whenever anyone starts their rant off whining about the so called "gay agenda", thats usually the first sign that they dont really know anything about homosexuality or the G.B.L.T. community...

First of all, the only agenda they have and that I support is a natural desire for equality...The same equality that you and many other heterosexuals take for granted.

Sure...Scholastic is a company and they do have the right to be as intelligent or stupid as they like...Just as those of us who dont agree with their stupidity have every right to disagree with them and/or boycott them as well as blog them.

Now, Im willing to bet that if they did choose to keep such books as you homohaters dont like in their offering that you would be bitching about it just as we are now because theyre not...

By the way...Just because scholastic can be ordered by school students doesnt mean that the books scholastic sells are school books...Which means that those books would more likely than not get read at home...

Something else to think about...Its the parents paying for those books and not the kids which means that the parents must agree to buy the books the kids choose...Now, do you really think that a homohating parent(s) would buy those book for their kids ? And do you really think that kids brought up to hate homosexuals in such a household would pick those books to order ? 

Scholastic has absolutly no logical reason to not sell those books and the homohating parents have no logical reason to get upset about it BUT considering all the discrimination that the G.L.B.T. community has endured over the years...They have every logical reason to get pissed and so do their heterosexual allies.

You can't please everyone, and no one likes to lose...

Who is to say they aren't going to change their minds, and with all the controversy over this one little book, sales are going to be a lot higher than if they had just carried the book in the first place.  Hell, I might even check it out.  I'm curious, as are probably a whole lot of other folks.

Just don't be a hater like a lot of folks on here, not that I'm implying that you are.  Always look on the bright side.

Wow..  Seems like I'm a popular guy =)

Melissa -- You can preach all you want, that's fine.  You brought up the point about corporate responsibility.  Are you saying that by this one action, all the good they've ever done, is un-done?  That's what it sounds like to me.

Thomas --  I'm a homohater.  Well spoken.  You truly have a way with words...

Thank you mr. hooper.

Spreading the homosexual agenda eh? I know the religious Reich is delusional but how is hinting at he reality of normalcy and diversity of families even close the your idea of the "homosexual agenda?" Sure I agree kids need to learn about diversity and those classes must include treating LGBT people and families with equal dignity and respect.

When you take us out of the false stereotype of being only sex addicts you get normal, loving, simple people. People, who are slapped with the negative, derogatory, and condemning rhetoric like what you perspire. People who are hated so much that the the hatred is seems joyous and humorous while those that support such people like Melissa and myself as well as our "NORMAL" families are seen as radicals, anti-god, anti-american, pushing a sexual agenda.

I, like the rest of us here, are sick and tired of you ingrates making us sick and tired, because we have to prove that our existence is normal, and not "wrong" at every fucking turn. As well as hide our relationships and families so it is not pointed out as another defect that "will indoctrinate the impressible children."

That is another thing to talk about indoctrination... Let us see what is more indoctrinating huh? Forcing children to think, feel and believe that all LGBT people are sinful, sick, immoral, wrong, and evil, or letting those kiddies to see reality for what it is and allow them to make those decisions themselves, while providing a non toxic atmospheres for LGBT students or students with same sex parents.

You seem very angry Chris, you might want to get some professional counseling....and...reread my posts.  I never once said you anything.

Need a hug?

??? "I never once said you anything."

I rest my case... however I didnt not comment on your post in this one... you might want to read where my post are before you post. LOL

I, like the rest of us here, are sick and tired of you ingrates making us sick and tired, because we have to prove that our existence is normal, and not "wrong" at every fucking turn

Whoa...  We're ingrates?  Aren't we, the straight people, the ones who produce children?  Being gay, YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T!  WTF is wrong with you?

What are you trying to say Chris?  How well are you representing the gay community?  People in the fence, are SURELY going to side with you.  Grow up!

The middle can make up their own mind. The problem here is that you are not on the middle side because of your comment right there.

"How well are you representing the gay community?"

Why should one person be the speaking ground of an entire people. If you were really middle ground you wouldnt look at it in that respect, but look at me as just one person in a ocean of sea life. Why should every gay person have to act the same and be all cheery and respectful to bigotry and ignorance? While I have friends who are activist who are respectful of other's bigotry I am certainly not, nor will I, nor should I or anyone else have to accept such bigotry and ignorance. 

Am I arrogant and bias? You bet your bottom dollar I am. Why? Well that is an easy one. History repeats itself and that includes the liberation of people who are oppressed. We already have major aspects of religions including Jewish, Christian denominations that support full inclusion. Even more religious people support us in denominations that dont. Those people will in short time change the minds of their leaders and then those denominations will support us. The US now sees us an a disenfranchised minority, 48 percent of the population is leaning towards acceptance of allowing us to be legally married to our spouses. And every major and minor credible science community has already spoken volumes on what their stance is for LGBT people and its full inclusion.

I guess you can say I am the clean up crew for the left overs that havent seen reality yet. Do I care about changing their mind? No. Not even face to face interation can change peoples minds. Although Tammy doesnt speak for all of her kind, she proves that she cannot be changed even by her friends and her own brother, to see them as equal, normal, human beings trying to live their lives.

I don't care if people side with me I just care when they get a laugh at people like you and Tammy for your lack of just about everything that involves using your brain. I just help them point out your idiocies. I gave up changing peoples minds long ago. I just enjoy posting on their own stupidity and ignorance.

Either way kid it was nice hearing from you. I call you kid because I know children of the age of 3 having more cognitive resources that folks like yourself.

Oh and by the way (BTW) unlike you, I actually have balls, which means, I have sperm, which means *gasp* I can have children too if that sperm combines in an egg. Its called in vitro fertilization and a surrogate motherhood. Just because I am gay doesn't mean my balls simply just fell off same goes for the ovaries of gay women. They still exist which means any gay man or women still have the ability to reproduce a child and most often we do have children, some from surrogates, some from previous attempts at trying to be straight, and from adoption. LOL, but when it comes to the biology part of the human reproductive system I guess you skipped that little detail when you slept through high school bio. That is if you are even old enough to have taken it yet.

Well peace kid. Keep up the epic fails, I know many of us enjoy pointing them out and laughing at you for them. Oh and by that way that includes both gays and straights on this page.

Mr. hooper...

How do you equate homosexuality with sterility ?

Such foolish thinking just boggles my mind.

Did you know that there are actually some heterosexuals out there that can never reproduce on their own ?

Believe it or not...There are...Which means this "whole procreation is the reason for marriage" argument fails right on the face of it.

Devil's advocate: What is the truth? Your argument wouldn't work on the religious right.

Truth is these relationships happen, to try and hide from that truth is delusional. Delusion is harmful.

The truth is lots of things happen.  Just because they happen does not make them right.

Wasn't talking about right or wrong, was talking about truth. Truth is liberating, delusion is debilitating. Only through facing truth can the right path be found. The truth is it those that want to discriminate vs. those that seek equality.

Definition by definition is discriminating, "defining" marriage is to apply discrimination. Is it right to have this discrimination? Or is it right to choose equality?

Sweetie, the definition of marriage was set way before you or I came along.  God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Adam...you know?

I believe with everything in me you have a right to live your life the way you choose.  As I said in another post, I would lay down my life to ensure that right for you and everyone in this country.  That being said, I have the same rights.  I believe in God and I believe homosexuality is a sin.  I have many gay friends...and my brother is gay.  They do not openly flaunt their lifestyle in front of my young children so as to force me to explain things to them they are not ready to understand.

I believe you have the right to the same rights as marriage...but it needs a different name. 

Your truth is not my truth....my truth is not yours.  Get the picture?  Why is that your truth has to be shoved upon others?

All children will eventually understand the reality of homosexuality.  I will decide....when my children are ready.  Not you....not all the gays in America can force me to do it on YOUR schedule or in YOUR way.

Equality?  You already have it.  You are free to live your life as you wish.

You cannot legisilate respect. 

I played devil's advocate earlier to encourage others to examine what "truth" is and what "truth" really means. Sadly, I don't see a lot of thought here about truth. What I see is people insisting that they know the truth, but can't or won't back it up - that's truthiness. Others argue that there's more than one truth ("Your truth is not my truth....my truth is not yours.") - that's relativism. Both approaches are wrong.

So you may be asking, "Mr. Nicolson, what is the truth?" (Hopefully you're being that respectful.) I submit that marriage equality and resisting corporate censorship (as others have pointed out, this book is not truly censored - the government has not blocked its publication or edited the work) is the correct ethical position. I will use two frames of reference to justify my argument.

1. Utilitarian ethics - Acknowledging and embracing marriage equality creates more happiness (and causes less pain) than the status quo. First, marriage equality will tend make all people who want to get married happier. It will also ensure them the rights that heterosexual marriages enjoy - issues of hospital visitation, inheritance, insurance, adoption, etc. People who favor equality are pained by the status quo, so embracing change would help to relieve this. People against equality are not happy with the status quo - I would argue that they generally would prefer that homosexuality simply cease to exist (which is essentially impossible). I submit that embracing equality would make them happier in that they would be able to give up the fight and, by and large, they would get over it over time. Initially, people who were against equal rights for women and non-Caucasians (the stupid catch-all "people of color") were angered when those groups were ensured their rights - but once those rights were guaranteed, eventually the anti-equality forces gave up and subsequently dwindled - hence a decrease in the amount of pain caused. (I am not suggesting that sexism and racism have been eradicated - I merely argue that they have decreased substantially.)

Second, avoiding corporate censorship tends to increase good and happinesss because humans are generally pained when censored - whether by government, corporation, or religious group. I imagine that the author of this book is not pleased about this development with Scholastic. Humans are also pained when they are told what media they can and cannot consume (hence the outrage at Scholastic's decision in regards to this book). In either case, avoiding corporate censorship decreases pain. I can find no reason to think that corporate censorship would increase aggregate happiness.

2. Deontological ethics - As per the categorical imperative ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.") it is clear that any form of discrimination against other humans based upon their identity is unethical. If we were to make marriage inequality universal, that would negate the institution of marriage and neither heterosexual nor homosexual couples would enjoy its benefits if they so chose. As for corporate censorship, I think we can all agree that we would not like to see universal corporate censorship - i.e. companies refusing to publish or sell controversial materials - as that would mean that corporate interests would cease publishing and selling media that we consider valuable - fiction like "Huckleberry Finn," religious texts, and nonfiction works (media about evolution, for example).

Miss b...

You say that you consider homosexuality a sin yet you then claim to have gay friends...

Now, I gotta wonder why you would want to be friends with people who in your opinion are sinners based on their sexual orientation AND why they would want to be friends with someone who would deny them equality ?

As for the definition of marriage being set by your god...History would bely that statement.

Flaunting a lifestyle ?

Considering that sexual orientation isnt a lifestyle but rather a state of being...I believe its "flaunted" by default by all of us, both gay and straight.

Seperate but equal will never be equal...

No one is trying to force anything on you or your kids sweety.

As for your cute little legislation remark...

You folks should talk considering that ya'll've been trying to legislate your religious beliefs onto those who dont believe as you do.

Mr. nicolson...

In regards to spiritual beliefs...

There is no one truth or one god/goddess.

I have no opinion on any other kinds of truth other than to say that discrimination is wrong.

I beg to differer  here.  There is only one God.

Nicolson I love your comment. As a scientist we look at "truths" in two categories, subjective and objective. Subjective truths are truths we hold to ourselves. A perfect example of this is the saying: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one." They are nothing but mere opinion.

Objective truths are sometimes exchanged with the word facts or evidence. Many scientist use the word evidence and explain the evidence to avoid confusion among non-scientific minds. We almost never say "truth," because our work, research and experiments, which we poured our lives into are seen as only competing opinions. However, I hear the word "facts" quite a bit. Facts constantly change and evolve as new data comes into play, however sometimes the word fact is used when a certain fact, like the "fact" of homosexuality is a normal, natural, and many psychologist say "a positive" variant of sexual orientation. Over sixty years of data has concluded that evidence and so many call it fact.

Does that mean it is truth from an objective perspective? Yes it does, however you wont hear many scientist say it in that respect. We do often call such substantiated evidence for a certain phenomenon: "reality." So in regards to Gary and his comment. We should not protect our children from the reality we are so afraid of them approaching which seems to be tolerating or worse accepting a disenfranchised minority as normal and equal to themselves and their families.

And yes we can also debate what reality is to each individual but as I explained reality from a purely scientific perspective. Yes that reality changes frequently but scientist line up on one side of the line as they do with evolution and vaccinations for children. I am sure you know what side that is. :3

In your religion perhaps miss b although the teaching of your triumvirate god head would seem to contradict that but in my religion there are many gods and goddesses.

Thom you are too nice. I would have played the card "screw your religion mines better."

Why? because in her eyes only her religion is the best. Look at how she demoralizes Melissa, and Melissa is a christian too.

Tammy only thinks her pastors idea of religion is right, and everyone else is wrong. It is sad because if you get another person from the same denomination in the same room with her they are bound to start arguing about who is right and who is wrong. It is the nature of such primitives in our modern culture. They lash out against the thought of evolution because they do not want to be associated as being from animals. Yet, they do a great job showing how they certainly how unevolved they are.

Yeah but by being "nice" about it, I get to piss them off all the more...

Mr. McHugh and Ms. B - I think you've both missed the essential point of my post. That's probably my fault, since it was so long. I'll try to be more clear....

I had a professor who had a very big impact on me (not all of it good). But I'll never forget one of his favorite lines: "How do you know this?" If you made an assertion in a paper or in class discussion and couldn't back it up with logic or data, your point became null and void. I apply the same standard to discussions on the Internet (silly, I know) and I tend to call people on it.

And while I appreciate your support, Mr. Marshall, you have committed a common logical fallacy - ad hominem. Mocking Ms. B does nobody any real good. You'll note that in my prior post, I made every effort to avoid fallacies (if you're not familiar with them, hit up Wikipedia).

You may also note that nobody has legitimately challenged my logic. Mr. McHugh attempted to argue that there is no one truth or one correct faith - but as I stated in the beginning, that's relativism. Relativism has largely been discredited as an ethical frame of reference, and for good reason - it's too weak. Relativism, taken to its logical extreme, means that nobody can judge anything and that there are no objective truths at all. You can see how dangerous this could be, no?

In contrast, Ms. B responded that there is "only one G_d" without offering any justification. I wouldn't dare speak for Ms. B, but I will assume that she is basing that argument upon the Bible. That is called an appeal to authority - saying that something must be true just because someone else says so. That's not a logical argument. Now, some might argue that the Bible is right because it was written or inspired by Jawheh. That's a circular argument called known as "begging the question."

Ah thanks for pointing that out Scott. Yes Ad hominem, stating a person is false on the pretenses of their self, i believe is the definition of that fallacy.

I have studied the minds of religious individuals as longer than I have study psychology. It is about the same number of years as i have studied religion which is nearing its 8th year. Although the gernalizations happen alot with all people on all subjects, my studies have created a strong bias in my mind on these individuals. I walked into my study long ago with an open mind. Now I understand the words of such people but unless they back up their conclusions with evidence that has been tested and is repeatable, that is from credible sources, I take what they say with no importantce to anyone but to that individual. I am quite aware that some people feel the same way with scientist and our studies.

As for your arguments Scott on the logic of Tammy you are correct in your assertions that she falls prey to appeals to athority and begs the question. However few people here even know what those fallacies are. I have only two years of studying ethical delemas and critical thinking. However from a psychological perspective the question is why does people like Tammy fall prey to logical fallacies? Even as much as I like Thomas, he too walks into realitvism. In terms of religion I see that happen with a few open minded people who have studied religions. I take the Dawkins approach to religion, but with a Hitchens and Bill Hicks twist. In terms of looking at religion from a ethical standpoint Sam Harris and Daniel Douglas frames of reference. Like Douglas it too confounds me when people think that the lack of evidence is evidence

As for challenging your arguemtns you didnt present anything to challenge, just data and logic. I like to incorporate mocking humor into my post. Which do fall into adhominem at times. Why? Because I have come to accpet that people only change if they want too and being kind to them for the willful ignorance and downright degrading rhetoric does no good to anyone either. Some could argue that they want to change if they came to this sight, however most often than none, especially in Tammy's case, it was to make a statement and be heard, no matter how innacurrate or degrading that comment is.

However it would be funny to see Tammy or little Jammie challege your comments. You based your comments quite well and its good to have another like yourself here. However this is an opinionated place. You have people on both sides with strong logic and with no logic but plenty of emotional empathy and apathy. All I can say is have fun on here. Arguments on here are like opinions. No matter how well you state them it is just another water molecule in the ocean.

This is not censorship.  People are still free to buy the book in many places.  They have a right not to sell a product, any product for any reason.

Why do you feel you must FORCE them to sell the book?  Why?

Scholastic Book Fairs have children selecting books without the supervision of parents. It is a parents right to censor what their children read....watch on tv....etc.

If you don't like it...boycott them.  You are outnumbered though. 

Miss b...

You made a rather conflicting statement in that you first said that students are choosing books without their parents supervision then you go on to say that parents have a right to censor what they read...

My question to you is...

How can parents censor what their kids read if theyre not aware of what the kids are choosing ?

Another question is...

How can a student buy a book without their parents knowledge and/or permission ?

And yes...It is censorship.

If you doubt this then imagine that scholastic chose instead to not sell any books "touting" "traditional" families and then you tell me it isnt censorship.

I would say, time for backward folks to move into present time, (to use your words) or die.

Technically, that doesn't appear in the books, so we can only wonder...

It's Nicolis Flamel I tell you!!! HA!

Thanks, Jack.  A few things:

1. I'd like to think that our goal as a people should be to act out of equality and fairness, not to obsequiously succumb to majority opinion when that demands oppressing or discriminating against a minority.  Would you consider maintaining Jim Crow laws in the south pre-1960 justified because the majority supported it?  Or Japanese internment camps under the same rationale?  I suspect it's possible you might, but I think you'd find that difficult to defend.

2. Having a story that includes two mothers does not bring up the issue of sex any more than a story about a mother and a father. If books are not answering the "where do babies come from" question in stories about two heterosexual parents, there's no reason it should come up in a story with a same-sex couple. And even if it were to arise, children can be (and are often) given the same protected "from storks" answer that you presumably prefer.

3. You argue that when children become adults, then they can "make up their own mind about sex." This seems to imply that homosexuality is a choice. I'm not sure why you think someone would choose to face the prospects of second class status, recurring discrimination, or the threat of violent death (see: Uganda, Iraq, etc) for their sexuality if they could just as easily "choose" to be heterosexual. Either way, your "choice" argument flies in the face of all available data; even the Catholic Church has now recognized that homosexuality is not a choice. It is fine to be fanciful and ignore the facts, but know that this is what you're doing.

4. I noticed you slipped in a reference to bestiality, implying it is in some way similar to homosexuality. This is sufficiently absurd to almost escape offense, but it is also the sort of thing that will get you banned from a gay rights website, which you are currently reading. We welcome constructive dialogue. We do not tolerate hate or ugliness. Please respect the line between the two.

Thanks.

Well said, Ben.

Most simply, I would also reiterate what the author of this book points out: hundreds of thousands of US children are currently living in homes with same sex parents. To censor such families from the books they read and pretend they don't exist is not only dishonest and hurtful. It sends a clear message that gay and lesbian-headed families are not equal, and that the children of those households do not deserve the same recognition or regard as children in heterosexual-headed households.

This message of inequality is, as Cynthia Nixon pointed out recently at the LGBT March on Washington, heard loud and clear by the worst elements of our society, who are happy to follow up on it with violence and all kinds of acts of hatred. 

People or companies who try to deny the reality of LGBT individuals and families need to face up to the fact that they are sowing the seeds of bashing, hate, and continued division for our next generation. Silence (or, in this case, invisibility) truly equals death for some of us.

Thanks-

Jack,  so should my child be forced out of the school?  He has two moms.  Should he be forced out of the school just as this book has been forced out of the school?  Should he be forced to not speak of his mom's?  Maybe we should coach him to lie about his family?  Not invite anyone over to his birthday party?   Oh, and by the way, he was indeed conceived by  a man and a woman...married to each other in fact...and then they gave him up for adoption and I gave him a loving home.  hmmm.  That makes you think a bit doesn't it?

Jack,

From the perspective of a woman who grew up in a somewhat minority case, where my parents who raised me were not my biological parents, and were not able to have children themselves, my favorite and most treasured book as a child that I still have to this day is the Mulberry Bird.

I was adopted, and at times while growing up, could not understand why some people looked exactly like their parents, or why my mom's belly never got big before we adopted my brother, etc. The book made me feel like a normal kid, that it was ok, and explained to me how my parents loved me so much that went through the trials and tribulations adoptive parents have to go through to adopt a child. Point being: it made me feel included in society. 

As a lesbian woman and one day hoping to have children of my own, I hope to be able to read bed time stories, as my parents consistently did for me, that included minority scenarios like mine, not necessarily as a focus, but just to help my children feel a little more normal and not like the second class citizens myself and partner are made to feel like everyday.

It wasn't my choice to be adopted. It wasn't my choice to be gay. And its not my children's choice to be discriminated against as well, even in as small of things as their bed time story books.

Homosexual parents are discriminated against enough. Don't make their children suffer too.

Cristian,  I addressed my post to you, but it was meant for Jack.  Sorry!

Mr. barr...

The "majority rules" argument fails when it comes to equality and civil rights for the simple reason that the constitution was set up to keep the majority from ruling over the minority.

To Jack Barr, 

Most children are not taught about their conception, if they are, then they are being taught about sex very early, but they know who they are raised by. Obviously, there was man involved in my conception, but I was raised by two women. Children do not think about the actual components of their existence but the components of their families. 

 Also, parents are often the ones who purchase the books at scholastic book fairs, at the very least they are the ones who read the books to the children. It is not as if a child picks up the book and instantly knows all there is to know about homosexuality, the choice still comes down to the parent. 

I cannot believe that you would put sodomy and bestiality on the same list as homosexuality and lesbianism. Gay people love other PEOPLE they just happen to be people of the same gender.

I can only hope that your children do not grow up to be as narrow minded and hateful as you. We do not need another generation of homophobes!

Jack,
I think the previous comments reflect my reaction to your post, but I'd like to share something that happened in my art classroom(K-2nd grade) a few weeks ago. We were making family portraits and discussing who and what to include in the drawings. Since we all have different types of families, the students shared different ideas about friends, extended families, etc. Then, a four year-old boy raised his hand and shouted, "two moms"! Out of 16 students, only positive and supportive reactions followed. I learn from my students to be a more loving person everytime I teach. Teaching in such a diverse city, NYC, has been so wonderful in that way. With your attitude as an example, I think the class would have had a different experience that day. Why would you deny a child an opportunity to be loving an accepting? What type of life would that child have as an adult? Think of the members of the community. Ask yourself, what attitude is harmful to children in this situation? Also, in what way are you a minority? Would you want others to deny your rights because of that?

Thank you miss jc...

I wish there were many more teachers with your attitude teaching our kids.

Blessed be to you and your class.

You probably meant that in a snarky manner but the irony is that your right...

Although that is changing as more and more heterosexuals come to learn the truth about homosexuality and the G.L.B.T. community.

Usually when you ignore the troll Thomas the bridge usually crumbles ontop of them sooner or later. We just happen to be the ones with the demo charges  to make that happen faster. LOL

True but by refuting their foolish arguments, I stay in practise for when the real bigots come tromping along... :)

You've got no sense of humor Chris.

You've got no sense of humor Chris.

I do but it just happens to be based off of making fun of people like you. LOL

I would say so miss d.

It definatly blows my mind that there are so many people out there that are willing to let others think for them...

Where have I advocated denying gay folks equal rights?  Where have I lied about them?

If you're going to libel someone, you should check your facts first.

You talk about straight people lying about gays, yet you just did it about me.  Who's the real liar?

You ma'am, are not helping your cause.

You seem to agree that it is ok to ban us from books.

Can you imagine what would have happened if they had tried to do this to a book with interracial parents?

Why mr. hooper...Werent you claiming in an earlier post that the homosexuals are trying to promote homosexuality in schools ?

Didnt you also claim that this was part of their agenda as if it were something sinister to be guarded against ? 

I believe you owe miss lightoller, mr. hockhousen and all of the G.L.B.T. community an apology then.

Are you referring to this statement?

"From a PURELY financial standpoint, how many angry letters are they going to get from the mostly straight people, who think the homosexual agenda doesn't belong in schools?  How many are going to complain about the non-inclusion of ONE BOOK?"

Which part of that did you not understand?  Was it the reference to the much greater number of religious zealots who were complaining?

I don't believe I owe anyone an apology.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

To Mr. Hooper, Perhaps you should reconsider the words that come out of your mouth. Obviously, if you're being "so misinterpreted" by people then you are saying something wrong. Do you think that people such as my own lesbian mothers and many others should have the same rights as straight people? 

If we are sooo misjudging you please explain!

Elizabeth - I'll just say this:  I can't control what other people see in their own minds, when they read what I write.

I'm not going to write at a fifth grade level, like the newspapers do.

I'm not one to blow candy coated sunshine up anyone's ass.  Some folks are so emotionally attached to keywords, that when they see them, they respond emotionally, completely missing the point/logic.  There is nothing I can do about that.

The people that didn't understand that are going to be the ones who comment about that.  Did you understand it?  If so, then you'll be watching for someone to comment on that as well.

I guess this is turning into a rant...  Sorry.

Elizabeth, I found your post quite interesting.  This is a learning experience for me.  I see hate and distrust in your post, yet at the same time, curiousity.  I'm going to assume you've read my other posts.  Two people like your comment, I'm one of them.  You actually asked me question, in a reasonably respectable manner.  I respect that.  You're the only one who didn't automatically assume I'm (I believe it was a) a homo-hater, although you sort of did.

  Although I've already explained my comments about not hating on Scholastic for what appears to be a financially based business decision (in MY eyes.)  You asked me a more personal question about what I thought about equal rights for lesbian mothers.  I'm going to answer the question I believe you were trying to ask.  If I'm wrong, please say so.

Do I believe that gay people should have the same rights as straight people? 

First, I will say that I think you (gay people) already do.  Yep, just pissed off a bunch of people...  Hear me out.  We have the right to freely contract in this nation.  Why do you think you (I mean gay people here) need governmental permission to freely contract?  In Elizabeth's question she mentioned something that she knows.  She had lesbian parents.  So having the ability to freely contract, how could her mom have shared parental responsibility?  Specific power of attorney?  You can get around a lot of things, JUST BY KNOWING THE LAW.  If a governmental agency doesn't recognize it, SUE THE BASTARDS!!!  Bring it all the way to the Supreme Court!  Like you couldn't find attorney's to work your case for free.  The fame of winning a case like that would bring countless dollars from rich gays.  You can wait for someone to ALLOW you to do something, or you can pave the way.  Life is what you make it!  So the legal definition of marriage is a man and a woman.  So freaking what?  Are you defeated?  If you are, please feel free to NOT comment.  I can't stand quitters who whine about losing.

In answer to Elizabeths question, here are the short answers:

Marriage?  No.  Civil Union?  Yes.  Ultimately, is there a difference?  No.  Why do I differentiate?  I believe marriage is a man and a woman.  So what, sue me.  Hate me even (I actually expect that.) 

What I get from you guys is that since I don't 100% agree with you.  I'm the enemy, and should be ridiculed and taunted.  Probably a few of you could tolerate me until you discover my true nature..  I'm not gay, and I have nothing to offer.

There I said it.  Are you going to be mature and be able to talk like a decent person about it, or are you going to berate me for being "on the fence?"

Just another thought...  You're trying to gain acceptance for the glbtq thing...  How is pissing on potential supporters going to help?  Seriously...

Wow to resort to personal attacks against me is perfect, thanks for falling into my mind traps. Doing what you did shows how insecure, unsophisticated, and self loathing of an individual you are. Man that trap couldn't have been sprung any better than by you.

You see I attack your logic, or therefore lack of logic as well as your apathy in your wonderful debacles you might think is appropriate commentary. Since you cant seem to pick apart my comments you resort to attacking me personally. Which, is only a sign of a weak individual who lacks the cognitive abilities to formulate anything relevant to reality.

So because I believe in equal opportunity I have to say something about you now. Because of your blind rage in trying to use my past appearance from a year ago as well as a small grammatical error to base your entire argument on, perhaps in trolling on these comments you are psychologically compensating for something that is deeply lacking.

As I thought it was your testicles it must be something of a smaller matter. Perhaps you should give natural male enhancement a try, it can help you overcome your problems and treat your massive inferiority complex at it source. Therefore it might help you cease posting ignorant, and stupid comments, and thus you will avert being systematically torn apart by every intellectual on this site.

P.S. tell your father he owes me twenty bucks for last night. At least I know he enjoyed it.

Mr. hooper...

I assure you that nobody here expects you to ever be supportive of equality.

Now, if your so convinced that marriage and civil unions are equal with one another then lets just let the G.L.B.T. community have marriage and us heterosexuals have civil unions...Deal ?

Personaly I could care less what you think about the G.L.B.T. community because thoughts in and of themselves mean nothing...But when you and others who are like minded go beyond simply thinking and try to force your beliefs onto those who dont think as you do then we got a problem.

Mr. McHugh - Trust me, I've learned that (almost) no one here could EVER possibly believe that I myself, could be anything but an enemy to be hated on.  I'm not one of you, so I'm clearly the vilest of enemies.  I got that.  Loud and clear.

So are you saying that civil unions are not equal to marriage?  As far as *I* know, they are.  If I'm wrong, let me know, and I don't mean the facetiously.  If functionally, they're exactly the same, differing only in name, I'd like to know.  As far as I know, they're the same.

As far as your deal goes, I'm going to respectfully decline.  Marriage has always been a straight thing.  Were this a new thing, and we all sat down and said okay, we need to come up for names for both...  Would I care?  No.  Not as long as they were both equal in form and function.  If all else is equal, why fight over the name?  So you can rub it in their faces?  If it's equal, why fight about it?

I'm not the one who is making laws like the defining marriage act.  Personally, I think it was a retarded piece of legislation that was was just feel-good legislation pandering to the religious right.  That, and it was a big waste of time and money.  I oppose all feel-good legislation.

"But when you and others who are like minded go beyond simply thinking and try to force your beliefs onto those who dont think as you do then we got a problem."

Attack mode.  Nice.

It appears as though the religious right aren't the only ones with a big sign out front saying "NOT WELCOME!"

Although I certainly don't believe this feeling is reciprocated, I don't hate gay people.

Dude dont feel bad your just a troll, life's a bitch as a troll and we can only make it worse LOL.

Also why I would I think about your balls other than having to use a scanning electron microscope to see them. For me actually its not about the size that matters its how well they crit with a level 80 Death Knights "death coil."

Also marriage has never been "a straight thing." Before the davidic dogmas came to power there were many religions and civilizations that had married same sex couples. Any person who can read off of google can find that from any anthropological site, including the American Anthropological Association.

You are childish and I have zero respect for you, unlike some of the others posting in this thread.  Yes, I stooped to your level, and I apologized for it.  I'm above that.  I've got to tell you, it's people like you, with your attitude, that really fuel the hatred for all of the gay community.

Straight people aren't the only ones who like some of my comments.  After seeing what you do to people that don't tow the line, I can see why they wouldn't say anything publically, especially if they're gay.

I'm not going to dispute the fact that there have been gay people all throughout recorded history.  I will also not dispute that there are instances of gay marriage in some societies, throughout history.  I will dispute your allegation that marriage has never been "a straight thing."  Hit up google.  But take your blinders off first.  Marriage IS a straight thing.

You're so smart and intelligent, yet you didn't bother to even touch on one subject.  Yes, I know you were busy making up things to say about me, so no worries.

So IS a civil union the functional equivalent of marriage, differing only in name?

I am sorry. Did I hurt your feelings buy not commenting back to you quickly my little pet? I am just a little to busy to be dealing with internet trolls, sorry but I have study to do for my Microbiology and Organic Chem classes. Forgive me if I haven't trashed another one of your hilarious and pathetic comments that you cant muster to even save your own ass with. Mainly the people here have given up with you little Jammie. I just enjoy soaking your rope in kerosene and then lighting it at the bottom when you think you have reached the top well the flame reminds you how far you have to fall before you hit rock bottom. 

It is not people like me who fuel the hatred towards the gay community its little shits like yourself who constantly refuse or purposely misinterpret scientific and historical evidence. For instance the American Anthropological Association has concluded with their research on marriage that it was never a heterosexual only institution throughout history, nor was it founded or created by christian, jewish, or islamic ideologies. If marriage was a purely straight thing then there would have never man any "instances" of gay marriages in history that were considered socially acceptable. Well guess what? Gays have been allowed to marry and it was socially acceptable. You defeat yourself on your own with no help from anyone else. That is why most dont even care to post to your inconsistencies.

Oh and as for Marriage Vs Civil Union. You know creating separate civil institutions for a minority is called segregation right? Segregation is unconstitutional both under the first amendment, the 14th amendment, and the 5th amendment. Second, Civil unions do not foster kinship rights to families and privileges as marriage does. Those kinship privileges and social acknowledgement that gay couples are equal to heterosexuals in their relationships and families is just as important if not more than the rights associated with marriage.

Here is a link to a great article done by our own Philip Chandler as well as Austin Cline about marriage and civil unions.

http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/whymarriage.htm

http://gayequalityandthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-why.html

But why should any of the organizations ban this book? It is all up to the parents. If they really don't want their kids reading a book about gay or lesbian families then they can rip the book out of their children's eager fingers... Scholastic wouldn't stick them in every school and library for free they simply will be selling them as they sell every book with straight families. 

Mr. Jaytheman, I don't think you understand the meaning of the ALA page that you cited. The American Library Association vehemently opposes all challenges to materials in libraries and has large amounts of material on their site to advise librarians on how to handle challenges. ALA has an annual "Banned Books Week" to highlight their efforts to keep books on shelves, not remove them. The statistics on the page you cited are information for librarians (and their allies) to use in understanding the threats that libraries face. (Knowing is half the battle and all that.)

My understanding is that, more often than not, libraries win such challenges and keep the controversial material in their collections. In the case of this very book, you can run a search on worldcat.org and see which public / university libraries in your area have it in their collections. According to my search, 191 libraries have the book in their catalog - and given how new the book is (street date was 01 October 2009), I imagine it will be in more collections in the next few months. Also, it appears that the author is a rather popular new author for YA girls - making it even more likely that YA librarians will make the book available.

http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/317927235

(I'm a graduate student in library and information science; hence my knowledge in this area.)

Also - yes, Scholastic can influence the school library to highlight the book. There are many means that publishers use to communicate with librarians in an attempt to promote their material.

Last thing - your argument about Scholastic (or other corporations) having no social responsibility is not fact - it's ideology. I'm not saying it's wrong - merely that not everyone will agree with that point of view. (For the record, I feel that corporations should behave responsibly as much as is possible. I don't expect them to go bankrupt doing so - but the quest for profit at the expense of all other considerations has done our society quite a bit of harm, IMO.)

Hi Juan,

I also think that Scholastic Books and the American Government can not intrude into other people's personal lives. I also think those parents need to be understanding, because some of their kids going to the Scholastic book fair might be LGBT or have friends that are LGBT and want to learn about diverse families portrayed in books.

I also wanted to add a personal note, Juan. I have a cousin who had a good friend and they've been friends for several years. A year ago their friendship ended abruptly because my cousin's friend said something negative about his sexual orientation through some e-mail conversation. My cousin's friend is an Indian American of deeply-religious Muslim faith. His friend said that he's against homosexuality but does not hate anyone. Me and my cousin had a conversation about this and I remember him stating the following quote:

"...I am AGAINST homosexuality because God created a man and a woman who can complement one another, procreate, and form a family...Where did you get this foolish idea that you are a homosexual?" I think thats how he said it.

His beliefs remind me of yours, Juan, but I don't know what your religious faith is. I don't need to know, so its okay.

They were such good friends who were very artistic and liked Japanese Animation and video game design/stories, they even have an account on DeviantArt.com. I thought that was admirable.

You see, I do not know the whole story but my cousin shared it with me a long while back and he felt hurt about what happened with their friendship. But my cousin is doing okay and still living his everyday life with school, work, family and all. Which is a good thing.

Juan, I really hope that you re-think your religious beliefs regarding homosexuality and the issues revolving around human sexuality in general. It doesn't hurt to read the Bible metaphorically versus literally and calmly question some of your religious beliefs, if any. I am not calling you hateful or ignorant, don't think that. By the way, have you watched that Lifetime movie 'Prayers for Bobby'? I urge you to try to watch it. So in the future you may have the bravery to fully accept LGBT people and embrace their sexuality and their loving, mutual relationships.

Since this is a 'Gay Rights' blog I just thought I could share that with you and other people on here who may not understand Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender social/cultural/political issues. Thanks!

For the sake of satire Juan and to make a stark point.

"I support equal rights for all but I do not support you being hispanic for religious reasons."

Now how selfish and ignorant does that comment sound to you? Pretty selfish and ignorant wouldn't you say?

Homosexuality, outside of the christian, and islamic religions (jewish religions are quite tolerant towards LGBT), is seen as normal. Contrary to your beliefs science has concluded that sexual orientation is unchangeable and there are many studies which suggest heavily that it is prenatal, and not post natal. That means you are born with a particular sexual orientation.

Now as for separating the person and the label/behavior. In the real world, in ethics and in science we see and understand that the behavior and the person are not two separate entities but one in the same. So if you do not support homosexuality you do support people who are homosexual being seen as equal in this world.

While sentiment's on this account dont surprise me, coming from another disenfranchised member of society deeply saddens me. What if the christian religion up and gave up their fight against us gays and started to attack you and your people? Seeing how they did this to gay people after they began to realize their fight against african american people had lost all grounds; it wont surprise me if that is a likely future. I just hope you are ashamed of your comments, and your views when we activist who are gay refuse to turn our backs on you and fight for you rights, even if you were part of the people who stripped us of our rights in elections. 

While I never forgive and never forget, my people, LGBT are mainly forgiving and always see the good side in humans. How... in such turbulent times, I dont know, but while I will despise your comments and you for being so willfully ignorant about who we are as people; when the religious right turn on you and make you the new other; you best believe I will fight for your people even if my help is not wanted because I just so happen to be something your religion despises.

Im not entirely certain we did misread him...

Loan, it's all good..  I respect you for understanding my position.

Tammy wrote:  You cannot FORCE your homosexuality on me...or anyone else.....especially not my children.

So does my son have to lie about the fact that he has two moms?  So as to not make your child uncomfortable (or really...make you uncomfortable)?  Because I can guarantee that my child talking about his moms will be much more real to your child than a book she might pick up somewhere along the way that talks about a child having two moms.  If you think I must teach my child to hide, pretend, lie, or be ashamed of his family, then please do me a favor and let me know exactly how I explain that to him when I've always taught him to be honest with others.  Honesty is really important in my house.  Is it in yours?

You rather confusing miss b...

First you call it a lifestyle then you call it an orientation...

Which do you really believe it to be ?

As for forcing anything on anyone...

The G.L.B.T. community could no more make you or your kids...Or anybody for that matter...Gay than you can turn any of them straight...

As I have said many times...

Sexual orientation is an innate trait that were born with and then discover through puberty.

Thats the same whether your heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.

You have no right to tell me that my children should be allowed to choose this book without my permission.  Scholastic book fairs allow children to choose books without parental supervision.

You are free to live your life however you wish.  I would give my life to make sure you have that right.  However, that gives me the same rights.  I am free to live my life and choose my religion....and my religion says this is a sin.  I have a right to raise my children to believe it is a sin.

I do not hate gays....my brother is gay.  Love him unconditionally.  That being said....I do not approve of his lifestyle and he respects how his life affects my children.

All children will eventually make their own decisions...but until they are old enough..it is our right as a parent to raise them with the morals we CHOOSE.

Gotta problem with that?  Send the Obamessiah's goonies to lock me up.

Just live your life...and quit forcing it on people.

Tammy wrote: Scholastic book fairs allow children to choose books without parental supervision.

They do?  How do the kids pay for it?  I supervise what my children do, and they don't buy books, any books, without my knowing what those books are about.  I don't need Scholastic to decide for me what books are ok, and what books are not ok by only putting certain books on their shelves.  I don't want to live in that kind of world.  I am the kind of mom who supervises her children.  I'm also gay...imagine that.  A good mom who can parent her children without laws or policies meant to protect what my children know and learn.  What a concept.

Our school has Scholastic BOOK FAIRS....you know where the kids go in and buy books with the money we give them?

Maybe your school does not have these....ours does.

Our school does too.  Are you required to give your children money for them?  Are you required to allow them to do so unsupervised?  Our school has late hours where parents go in and supervise their children buying books.  I would never let my children buy books without my knowing what they were buying.  They would come home with books about fighting and killing other violent things like Pokemon, Star Wars, WWII, all things of interest to my boys, but that are not accpetable to me.  But again, I guess that's just the kind of mom I am.  Actually involved in the decisions my kids make, not leaving it up to a book publishing company to decide.  Oh yeah, and I also live with and love another woman.  I know it is hard to imagine someone so deviant can also be a participating parent...that's why I keep throwing that in there.  Still waiting to hear if my son needs to lie to your child to protect your child from my incredibly harmful family reality.

When I feel my children are old enough to understand...I will explain it to them.  As for honesty, I will tell them...it is a sin.  That is my right as their parent.  You raise your kids however you want.  That is your right.

That being said, I raise my children to love all people according to The Bible. I will continue to raise my kids with Biblical values....and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.  You can make it illegal....but you won't stop me...or any other Christian parent.

First of all, I am a Christian parent.

Second, how do I keep my child from spilling the beans to your child?  You don't want them to have any information until they are old enough...to the extent that you want books that mention it in passing removed from shelves, (so you don't have to be responsible for supervising your children) then how do I make sure my child doesn't mention the reality of our life to your child who has not yet reached the age that you want them to be before you have this incredibly difficult conversation with them.  So how do I make sure my kid doesn't mess that up?  I figure my only options are to 1)tell him to never mention his family even though everyone around him can, 2)lie, or 3)take him out of school and homeschool him...which means he will not have as good an education. 

But really, the important thing is that you don't have to say to your children

"Oh, some families have a mom and  a dad, some have two moms, some have two dads, some just have a mom, some just have a dad, some families are made up of kids and grandparents, some kids are adopted and don't look like their parents and some kids even live in foster homes...the world is made up of all kinds of families". 

I can see this would be really tough to say to a kid, so I will do whatever I have to do so you don't have to go there with your kids.  Just let me know what that is. 

Show me where I said who was a good family and who was a bad family.  You can't do it.

As for what fits my definition...it is my faith in God that defines everything in my life.  Are you saying I have no right to practice my faith and believe that homosexuality is a sin?  Is that what you are saying?  Are you saying I have no right to my faith and my own thoughts?  That you have a right to shout homosexuality to children...and I have no right to protect my very young children from it? 

You cannot legislate respect or acceptance of anything.  Get used to it.

Tammy wrote: That you have a right to shout homosexuality to children...and I have no right to protect my very young children from it? 

So does my son have to lie to your child about the fact that he has two moms?  How do we avoid your child knowing the reality of my child's life?  I suppose I could quit my job and homeschool him to keep his abhorrent life out of the site of your priviledged and obviously more deserving children.  Let me know how I need to handle that.

So Tammy if your pastor, or your bible tell you to kill yourself and your children in the name of your god, you know martyrdom in accordance to both the old and new testament, would you do so because it is "defined by god?"

In the bible god says explicitly to kill your children if the talk back or dither from the word of god. So Tammy have you kept up to date on your religious executions because children in this society normally talk back to their parents. If you have not then you have blasphemed against the word of god and you are a heretic worthy only of death.

God makes his words very clear if you read the bible literally. It's in there just as how you say we are a sin. You cant take one passage from the word of god literally without taking the others. That is blasphemy and that sin is one that in completely unforgivable. At least your idea that homosexuality is a sin is forgivable. By not listening to the literal words of god, your sin of Blasphemy is not.

Just a thought...

So Tammy if your pastor, or your bible tell you to kill yourself and your children in the name of your god, you know martyrdom in accordance to both the old and new testament, would you do so because it is "defined by god?"

In the bible god says explicitly to kill your children if the talk back or dither from the word of god. So Tammy have you kept up to date on your religious executions because children in this society normally talk back to their parents. If you have not then you have blasphemed against the word of god and you are a heretic worthy only of death.

God makes his words very clear if you read the bible literally. It's in there just as how you say we are a sin. You cant take one passage from the word of god literally without taking the others. That is blasphemy and that sin is one that in completely unforgivable. At least your idea that homosexuality is a sin is forgivable. By not listening to the literal words of god, your sin of Blasphemy is not.

Just a thought...

"It was bad enough that my kids are sent to school to learn to read and write." - Tammy B.

:O:O:O

Ok...Sooooo you didnt want your kids to know how to read and/or write ?

Good god and goddess...

As for what kids tell each other...All I can say is that kids will say the darndest things...And there will always be at least a hint of truth in what they say...

Now...If your that determined to keep your kids safe from exposure to reality then why not just move yourself and your kids into an underground bunker and never again have contact with society ?

"Let's say I DEMAND you go to church."

By trying to legislate your "morality" into secular law...In effect thats exactly what you and all other fundemental christians are demanding...

The G.L.B.T. while in the minority exists everywhere in all 50 states not to mention in other countries as well...Not just in schools.

Also...Not every child of same sex parents is gay just as not every child of heterosexual parents is straight...

So really, even if you deny them reading material that talks about same sex parenting, you wont be able to keep them from becomming aware of the fact that same sex parents exist just as they wont be able to ignore that the sky is blue and the grass is green...

As I said before...

No one is trying to force anything on you, your kids or anyone else BUT in your attempts to protect your children from learning that not everyone is the same...You inadverdantly trespass on the rights of those same sex parents and their children and so in effect...You discriminate.

I dont have children nor do I ever plan to sire any but if I did have children then I would prefer that they never be exposed to any part of fundemental christianity however I am fully aware that such a desire on my part wouldnt be realistic simply because fundemental christians are everywhere...So, instead, I would choose to just teach them that taking anything to an extreme, especially when it infringes on the rights of others is wrong and hope that they would understand that and grow up to be more tolerant whether they agreed with someone or not.

Perhaps you should do the same.

You can demand all you want, it ain't gonna happen.

Miss novak...

Believe it or not...I agree with you.

However...Kids in school learning that some kids have same sex parents and/or that same sex parenting exists ISNT the same thing as learning anything about any sexual activity in and of itself.

Wow! Another one, just like Tammy B, you are completely UNABLE to separate the act of sex from the actual relationships.

Do you really believe that this book, Luv Ya Bunches is going to show the two mom 69'ing in front of the little girl in the book? Really?

From the reviews I have seen it is for approximately fifth graders and has absolutely NOTHING to do with sex and is about much more than a girl having two moms. It also includes a girl who lives with her single father after he mom passes away.

Since the man is single, do you think they will have some scense in it of him having premarital sex or even self-gratification (i.e. masturbating)? Seriously, it is simply a book about the family unit and how not every family looks the same.

Tammy, it is NOT a lifeSTYLE.

It is our LIVES.

Nobody choses this, and who would?  Would you elect to be part of one of the most hated, discriminated against groups?

I don't have a certain 'lifestyle' because of the fact that I'm bisexual, I live the exact same way I did before I figured out that I wasn't straight.

You are playing with peoples lives here.

First of all Tammy, do you really think there are no books that deal with religion in the book fair? Really? Are you truly that CLUELESS?

These books dealing with religion may not be the religious texts themselves (however, most of those texts are available for reading in the libraries.) Here are just a few examples that are available through Scholastic: How Many Miles to Bethlehem? -  Good Night, God Bless - Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam - Coming to America: A Muslim Family's Story - Salaam: A Muslim American Boy's Story - Shabanu: Daughter of the Wind.

Some friend. Your brother had no choice in the matter as to have you as a sister. As far as your gay friends, guess what, YOU are no friend!

Yeah mr. jones...

It is tragic...

To automaticly equate sex with parenting speaks very eloquintly about the lack of common sense being used no matter which orientation its being equated with.

It kind of makes you wonder when these people started having their kids watch them while having sex, doesn't it?

WTF? This book is written for FIFTH graders! So where the hell is your problem? Have you even researched what the book is about? No. All you know is that there is a family that has 2 moms. So what!

Miss b...

If your able to be there to help guide your childrens decision on what books to get then the presence of books of that nature becomes immaterial...In other words, your kids are more likely to only want to read what you deem acceptable...Right ?

So therefor allowing such books to be there for any kids of same sex parents or even heterosexual parents who may want to and are allowed by said parents to read such books would be only fair and right...Dont you agree ?

Now...If your not able to be there then you can either let them be chaparoned by other parents with similar values to you or just not let them go at all...OR you can trust them to abide by your teachings. 

But again...Denying other kids the right to read what they want and are allowed to by their parents is just as wrong as it would be if you and your kids werent allowed to read something by its absence from the book shelves.

And thats whats happening with scholastic when theyre deciding what kids can and cant read by leaving out certain books from their list.

Yes, you ARE intolerance at it's FINEST!

Word games miss b ?

Pot calling kettle black...

As for my quoting you in regards to your education related remark...You did say that...

I just quoted you.

Now you could have just said that you object to your kids comming home with tales from other kids about stuff you object to and I would have agreed with you but nooooo you had to start off with the reading and writing thing...Word games indeed.

As for my orientation reflecting in my lifestyle...It does in terms of what gender Im attracted to which in my case is women...But that would be the same with a gay person although they would be attracted to someone of their gender.

Thats the only correlation between sexual orientation and a lifestyle that I can think of.

My religion by the way is wiccan so it wouldnt likely be accepted in iran or any other islamic country any more than christianity would be.

Yes...You do have the right to disagree with me and yes...You do have the right to raise your children as according to your beliefs although I clearly disagree with those beliefs.

BUT nobody has the right to deny to others the exact same rights that you have and by not letting them be exposed to media that you find objectionable while they dont is infringing on those rights whether your an individual, a group or a corporation.

I liked waterboy, adam sandler was a hoot...

How is hiding the reality from your children, that you are very innacurate about; that gay people are sinful, sick, and only about sex, not hateful and beligerant in itself?

It is those comments that cause the hate agiasnt us. What you see from Paul and the rest of us is our disgust with your ignorance about LGBT people. It is even more sad that you have a gay brother and friends, who actually tolerate your anti-gay rhetoric. I pity you for your lack of knowlege and if I was religious I would pray that your children have the intellect to see past your religious indoctrination into their minds and I would also pray that none of your children are gay.

I thought you said sarcasm wasn't your thing.....either it is or it isn't. Therefore, keep the hug and shove your bible up your ass.

Angry? You haven't seen angry lady. Counseling? Lady you need a fuckin' tranquilizer!

I thought you said sarcasm wasn't your thing.....either it is or it isn't. Therefore, keep the hug and shove your bible up your ass.

Angry? You haven't seen angry lady. Counseling? Lady you need a fuckin' tranquilizer!

I'd take a hug, but since I am monogamous and faithful to my wonderful partner I might be too tempted...so I'd better not.

I do not go to the library with them, but I do review the books they read when they bring them home.

I'm not angry at all, I am logical.  Rhetoric hates logic and when you don't know how to deal with logic you rely on rhetoric and accusation.

And by the way, I wonder what your brother would think of you encouraging a gay person to go somewhere where they would be murdered.  Do you want him to be murdered.  How sad your relationship with him is so strained.  How can it not be if you'd encourage people similar to him to go somewhere to be murdered.

He was in the military for some time Tammy he knows the world around him quite well. As for using other countries in comparison, that is a fallacy of logic. You cannot compare cultures when your own is the one being focused on. You are simply deriving attention away from that facts.

I never claimed to be nice.

And I know that we are actually a constitutional republic, but we are still supposed to have democratic tendencies.

Are you really this much of an IDIOT Tammy? Really? You say they don't need our consent, but honestly, they don't need YOUR consent to sell it at their book fairs either. For which they now are.

Tammy, no one here has demanded that you read this book to your children, only that you supervise your children's reading materials so that we don't have to remove a book from the shelf so that you don't have to perform your parental duties and supervise them.  It is not the job of Scholastic Book Club to supervise your children, it is your job.  Perhaps you'd like ask that no cars drive past your house so that your kids don't get hit by one of them while you choose not to supervise them?  But what if I need to go to the grocery store?  Should I walk so that your children are not put in danger by the cars that might drive by your house while you are not supervising your children? 

I get to drive my car, my kids get to read the books that I allow, you supervise your kids and then they won't read anything you don't approve of, and they won't get hit by any cars.  See how easy this "take responsibility for yourself and your kids" concept is?

So if gods laws dont change then why are african americans not slaves anymore? Because under the word of Ephesians "all who enter the yoke of slavery be obedient unto your masters with fear and trembling as unto Christ".

What about women being seen as equal to men that sure has changed in the last 1187 years since the catholics took the Torah and then made the bible.

So if gods law never changes then why are black people and women not the slaves, and child bearers like the bible commands them to be anymore?

Oh that is right, because the word of god does change.

As I said Tammy, I review the reading materials that my children bring home, so while I am not there at the library, I am there when they bring things home, and I supervise what they are getting.  Parents are responsible for supervising their children...so if you have an issue with what they read, you need to find a way to do it, don't rely on others to do it for you.  It really is very simple...and when done right it does not require you to encroach on others' abilities to do the same.

You might not go to school with your children Tammy but your intolerance sure does. Like the case of Lawrence King who was shot in the back of his head during his computer class by another student because of that students parents teaching that child to hate homosexuality as a sin and contrary towards your god.

This book you dislike so much is not about accepting gay people, it is about a young girl who is trying to make it school and make friends, who just so happens to have gay parents.

This book shows that there are multiple different families in this country all around us, as well as the how normal these families are. Sheltering your kids from seeing that LGBT people and LGBT families are normal is not going to harm them. What harms them is telling that there is something wrong with being gay, when there is not. This is even worse if you have children and one of them is gay. Imagine the harm you instill onto them when you explain your rhetoric to them as you do to us, especially about your brother.

It is as equal to saying that "they exist, but they shouldn't."

I pity you and I feel sorry for your children being raised in such a toxic atmosphere.

So could the passages used against us LGBT be the same? Could your pastor be wrong in his interpretation? Some would argue that perspective. Also the Ten Commandments say nothing about homosexuality.

If you are up to it why dont you read for yourself with the help of other theologians who have doctorates in their study of the bible, what the bible actually says as oppose to what the bible reads.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible

As much as I agree Paul, what you say about letting us live our lives, is not possible for them. While they think we shove our lives down their throats by fighting to be seen as the normal people we are as well as banish all the false stereotypes and lies they created about us, as we all can see they do the deep throating themselves. It is usually the ones like Tammy who break the founding principles for which our system of checks and balances were established for, strip people of their dignity and humanity as well as their rights, tell people how to live their lives; while vehemently disagreeing with anything that doesn't support their religious values, and then cry foul when someone like us yells "ENOUGH" and points out the fallacies in logic and there inconsistencies with compassion, and understanding reality.

By Tammy being on this blog and wonderfully showing her lack of compassion, knowlege, logic, reason, and biblical text, all day, shows that she only wishes to cause strife with people who wish to live their lives and have equal oppertunity for their families and their children as well as being protrayed in a real light and not in the false light religious ingrates wish to paint them with.

It is wonderful to see her conviction in her post. Unfortunatly her conviction is quite anti-human, anti-tolerance, and anti-gay. However, nothing was more beautiful than her statment that I needed to see help for my anger. That was beautiful Tammy you fell for that trap perfectly. While my anger is real; for Tammy to question its source was absolutely perfect. She causes a problem, creates anger, is part of a group of people who willfully deny the scientific evidence, people that causes massive pain for millions of our brothers and sisters, then arogently wonders where that anger, where I have and were we have, comes from.

Brovo Tammy my work here with you is done. Take care.

Yep and I was honored to fight by your side sir.