The latest front in the culture war has taken an interesting turn. Mostly Democrats and members of various LGBT identity groups have decided there should be no discussion about the appropriateness of books that depict children performing gay sex acts.
The mere mention of it has been described as book banning.
The tip of this “spear” is a book called Gender Queer, which includes a cartoon depiction of a child performing fellatio on another kid. By all legal definitions, this is kiddie porn. If you handed it to a random kid on the street, you could be arrested, convicted, and added to the sex-offender registry for life. But daring to suggest it might not be appropriate to let anyone of any age grab it off a public or school library shelf is considered intolerant.
Speaking of intolerant, there are plenty of books, both graphic novels, and text only, that depict or describe sex acts, so are these banned too?
No Hentai in the school library but Gender Queer needs to be there.
How about any of the dozens, if not scores, of “periodicals” or other material depicting nudity or sexual acts in print? Are we okay with gay porn only, or is heterosexual porn acceptable? Can we have a debate about “banning that?”
It’s not a Ban
Leaving them out of the school library is not “book banning.” It is a choice about taxpayer-funded access based on age, maturity, and a general sense of public moral interest, but since we’re here. Is anyone who wants that material available to minors in public or school libraries advocating for children’s access to porn?
Is there some other explanation? It’s pornographic. You want them to see it. You do not want to debate it. And whether you are an elected official, school administrator, librarian, parent, teacher, neighbor, activist, or member of an identity group, your objection to the conversation says one thing. You believe children need to see this.
You think children need to be sexualized, and your vector of preference (in this case) is gay porn. And if possible, without further discussion, as evidenced by the town council in Rochester this past week.
(Couniclor Jim) Gray had tasked Blaine Cox, the city manager with sitting down with the city’s chief librarian, Marie Lejeune, and getting her take on the appropriateness, or inappropriateness of the above-referenced images in Gender Queer.
But the City Council chose to short-circuit the discussion by removing the agenda item using a rarely employed – at least with this body – Robert’s Rules of Order codicil that voids the agenda item with a two-thirds vote. The council voted 12-1 to remove it, with Gray the lone nay vote.
The vote robbed Cox of doing his job. In fact, we don’t know if he ever sat down with Lejeune or not.
The Rochester City Council banned debate, so we presume their position is no different than those in the LGBT community who showed up to defend the book; your kids have a right to access taxpayer-funded gay kiddie porn, and objecting to that is the equivalent of book banning, even though the book is readily available not just online but in print to anyone who wants it.
I guess what I’d like to know, and perhaps any number of taxpayers and parents as well, is why do you, as an adult, want children to access gay porn but not all porn?
Or do you want that too?
