-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://gay.americablog.com/2009/08/should-libraries-stock-ex-gay-books.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
If it's worth knowing, good or bad, it needs to be in the library. If people are using it against you, it's worth being able to read if you had to.
There is always going to be debate concerning what belongs in a public library and what does not. The key in this case, in my view, is for such materials to carry an informational warning label (with facts such as the fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder which removes all medical justification for attempts to change a person's sexual orientation) because they are potentially hazardous to a person's health and are unscientific.
More information, not less, is usually a good thing.
It isn't so much what books are offered at libraries, as it is how they are classified.
No brainer, and every good library I have used solved this problem long ago and it didn't include censorship.
The whole point of living in a free society is that no ideas, no books, and no words are banned. The moment you ban something you don't like, it allows people you don't like to ban something they don't like -- like pro-gay books in a library in Utah.
I understand that it is a very touchy subject - i.e. the possibility of censorship.
But on the other hand, a stand does need to be taken against books that have faulty data. I think that if an author presents his or her work as accurate, then it should be accurate - with no discredited research and no studies continuing to be taken out of context even after the study's author complains.
Like I said, it's a very touchy subject but that's what we are dealing with when it comes to books of the ex-gay nature and i'm all for librarians and groups taking steps to police such books for accuracy if the authors won't do it themselves.
In other words, no, we can't go about banning books from the library, but we can expect books with bullshit science to not be placed in the science sections.
There is not easy answer. The only good argument you have is that there is limited shelf space and you have to choose what books to include. The other upside is that if a book is not circulating you can take it off the shelf.
I was not living out, but I know at least one person thought I was gay. We had one such book in the library, in the Christian section. She chose that book and made sure I was at the check out desk when she got ready to check it out. Then immediately turned it back in so that I would have to handle it. She had a bad reputation in the community for being a mean old broad so I didn't worry about it. She was just trying to get a response out of me. The upside was that I go to talk to her smiling the whole time, reminding her that we keep our circulation records a secret. LOL.
If someday there WERE a scientifically valid way to turn gay people straight, I would not oppose including it in the library, and even today if there's a book that admits that turning straight is not possible but nevertheless discusses how to remain abstinent in accordance with certain religious beliefs, I wouldn't oppose including it in the religion section.
"So this situation is about neither diversity or "tolerance." It's about a bunch of liars trying to undermine the well-being of our lgbt children."
Basically he's saying "even though I understand that banning books is the antithesis of diversity and tolerance, this is different because ex-gays are a bunch of liars! <stomps feet> Liars liars liars!"
I mean, come on. Let's try to remain intellectual about this. Of course our libraries should not "ban" any books, and if you think they should, please do not compain when a conservative library wants exactly zero pro-gay material.
It's like sometimes Americans forget they're in America.
I disagree, though, with the ridiculous way he said it, and I disagree that banning ex-gay books is not a rejection of diversity. A free society must allow for equal access to all sorts of asinine, unproven, hypocritical, bigoted opinions, or it's not free.
http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html?imw=Y
1. Homosexuality isn't a disorder (with citations), which removes all medical justification for such "conversion techniques".
2. Holding homosexuals accountable for the homophobia of others is called heterosexism. Heterosexism is also based on the false belief that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexualsl
3. Homophobia and heteorosexism are learned and can be overcome with factual education.
4. The Riddle Homophobia Scale.
Heavy-handed censorship is rarely the answer. What if someone wanted to write an academic paper about the scientific or sociological implications of these books? There are all sorts of legitimate uses for information.
The key is to make sure that people know what the legitimate scientific world believes and how such materials are therefore unsupported.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-wolfe/harve...
Here is the basic post that they won't allow:
"A case in point is the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law dealing with gays in the military. It clearly has outlived its usefulness. Future Congressional action will be enhanced because there are three U.S. Representatives who are part of the LGBT community (Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis)."
The notion that the mere presence of elected LGBT politicians will result in strong advocacy seems to be contradicted by the following example:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/barney-frank...
Would Harvey Milk have done that? I really doubt it. And, as nice as the medal is, wouldn't doing things like not firing over 300 troops for no reason other than homophobia count more?
Well, given Frank's behavior regarding the DOMA brief, isn't that a fair question?
===========================================
As long as they're filed under "fiction", I don't mind. ;-)