Dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen.
Where people have burnt books, they will also burn men in the end.
Now, I don’t expect burning of men to occur anytime soon, but when books are destroyed (or banned and destroyed in this case), I think its time that we should sit up and take notice, because it seems that the argument here is that the non-nuclear family is inherently objectionable, which goes against the notion of diversity in society.
NLB first wrote that
…that the books did not promote family values.
I guess we’re using the Wikipedia version here then, since I’m assuming that family values here mean ” nuclear family as the essential unit of society” where the nuclear family is defined as a father, mother and children (which is in itself debatable). I guess I’m a little puzzled by this claim since I am sure I would have heard of it by now if they explicitly stated that we should consider the familial unit something other than the nuclear family. As such, I see the book as a proposal of such a familial structure as an viable alternative to the idea of the nuclear family, which still does not explain how it would not promote the idea of the family. And it should not either, because the only perceived attack I can see is the perceived notion that the existence of the non-nuclear family attacks the nuclear family in some fashion.
The NLB further clarifies that
” NLB’s collection development policy takes special care of our children’s collections to ensure they are age-appropriate. “
The idea of age-appropriate, to a certain extent, should naturally be upheld (just so people know, I’m not advocating things like porn here here). However, the idea that love between two male penguins is not age-appropriate is ludicrous. It is so because there is nothing un-age-appopriate in there. Parents love their children, and to say that mom loves me is not age-appropriate is silly. I love quite a few of my friends who just so happen to be the same age as yours truly (give or take a few months). Would one then say that such a love is inappropriate? Obviously not. If a love between a man and a woman can be portrayed in a children’s book, would it be inappropriate? Clearly not. So then, why would a love between two male penguins, if described in the same detail as all the other forms of love written about above (so given that there is no sex scenes or anything widely held as inappropriate), be inappropriate? The only objectionable thing is, again, the existence of the non-nuclear family as defined above as inappropriate.
In saying that Tango Makes Three is appropriate to pull from the shelves, the NLB are sending forth the message that there is something inherently objectionable with the homosexual population, which in turn have the potential of reduced tolerance for others that do not align with our worldview.We are reducing the representation of and tolerance for diversity, and this is a very dangerous thing, given that we are a nation in which diverse worldviews collide.
Which could very well, one day, lead to the majority burning men
[ETA: I have not read the book but this is from what I see people talking about]