velvetpage: (bibliophile)
It's from a librarian who was asked to reconsider a book called, "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," because a certain library patron found the subject matter unsuitable to the small children for whom the book was designed.

Here is the librarian's reply to the request for censorship. Beautiful.
velvetpage: (studious)
Every time i stand up, I see stars - but I can still think and type! Comments welcome - I haven't sent it to the newspaper yet, but I'm going to. It's about the right length for an article on the Opinion page, though far too long for a letter.

Fears of nascent sexuality in recent events )
velvetpage: (Default)
Link to local story

The choicest quote: Jim Enos, who identified himself as vice-president of the Hamilton-Wentworth Family Action Council, representing families with Christian values, said terms such as homophobia misrepresent the rational fear of disease students should have.

He said he felt passing the policy would cause HIV rates to rise if kids lose a fear of the "serious consequences of homosexual conduct."


Thank you, Mr. Enos, for proving conclusively how badly our school board needs this policy.

I've written a lot of letters to the editor in recent months. Does anyone else want to take up that gauntlet this time? If not, I may still do it.
velvetpage: (mawwaige)
The Bible says (arguably, but let's leave that aside for the moment) that homosexuality is a sin. It also says that God will not test people beyond what they can endure. That means that homosexuality must be a lifestyle choice, because if it isn't, then you're left with two choices: either God is an abusive parent, holding His children responsible for behaviours that are out of their control, or homosexuality is not a sin after all.

Many Christians start with "homosexuality is a sin," arrive at the logical conclusion - it must therefore be a lifestyle choice - and look for science to back them up in that belief, thereby proving that it is, in fact, a sin. When something comes out in research that backs up the opposite hypothesis (which happens frequently) Christians must deny it, or face the choices above, neither of which is palatable.

I've long since decided, of course, that the Bible doesn't in fact condemn the modern version of homosexuality - that is, two equal partners in a loving, committed relationship akin to marriage. By accepting this, I leave myself open to the probability that homosexuality is, in fact, inborn - either genetic, or a result of hormonal influences in the womb, and most likely both.
velvetpage: (studious)
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061028/25636.htm

Here are the things I noticed:

1) The study doesn't recognize bisexuality at all. This is a major flaw, since there are at least half a dozen people on my friends list who identify as bi and are married/in heterosexual long-term relationships. Behaviour is only one indication of sexual preference, and it is not necessarily the definitive one.

2) There's an underlying equivalence here between "social" and "environmental" that needs to be challenged. Environmental factors could include physical things like pollution that are not controllable on an individual level but could have an effect (to the best of my knowledge, that has not been ruled out as a scientific factor - someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

3) The conclusion - "Taken together, the study’s findings suggest that intact parents bearing multiple children and living in rural areas increase the probability of heterosexual pairings in their children." Really. I thought it showed a connection - but I didn't see any evidence of causality. It seems to me that the more insular and religious your family life, the less likely you are to be open about your sexuality if it doesn't match expected norms, leading to fewer homosexual marriages. Thus, social expectations increase repression rather than decreasing homosexuality.

All in all, I dislike the tone that parents can avoid that most horrible of outcomes, a homosexual child, if they just obey the teachings of their church regarding their own marriages. Of course, it's what I would expect from this source, but still - it grates.

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags