Boycott Scholastic for Endorsing Pro-Homosexual Kid's Book
The famous -- and soon to be infamous -- Scholastic Books has decided to include the pro-homosexual book for 9-12 year-olds, Luv Ya Bunches,
in its middle school book fairs. This troubling book is already in the
Scholastic Book Club catalogue, which is distributed to elementary
school children.
Because of the vociferous protests of homosexuals and a petition drive by the pro-homosexual organization Change.org, Scholastic Books has reversed its initial decision to exclude the book from their book fairs. It will now allow Luv Ya Bunches to be included at its middle school book fairs.
According to the Guardian, author Lauren Myracle
"who regularly makes the list of the most banned and challenged authors
in the US -- capitulated on the language, removing words such as
'geez', 'crap', 'sucks', and 'God', but refused to replace the lesbian
parents of her character Milla with a heterosexual couple." Scholastic
Books includes Luv Ya Bunches on it's "Teacher's Picks" page as one of the "Best Books" for grades 3-5.
Change.org describes Scholastic Books as "one of the largest education
publishers in the world with broad influence over the reading materials
of children everywhere. . . .These are the same book fairs that have
reach [sic] to millions of schoolchildren nationwide." Clearly,
homosexual activists recognize the potential Scholastic Books has to
transform the views of impressionable children.
IFI is urging parents to notify your children's schools that because Luv Ya Bunches is listed in the Scholastic Book Club catalogue, the catalogue is not to be distributed to your child and that you will not be ordering any books from Scholastic Books. (Click HERE for a sample message that you can edit, customize, print and send.)
In addition, notify your children's school that if Luv Ya Bunches will be included at the Scholastic Book Fair, your child is not to be taken to the fair during or after school hours.
Finally, send emails to Scholastic Books management to inform them that
as long as they are carrying books that affirm homosexuality as moral,
you will not purchase books from them:
Richard Robinson (Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer)
Maureen O'Connell (Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
Ernest Fleishman (Senior Vice President of Education and Corporate Relations)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
More and more children these days will be homosexual, since there are so many people that are having children these days. A book like this will be good for them, this way they don't stay in the closet when they realize they like the same gender or both.
If being homosexual was immoral, then it wouldn't happen.
Thanks for providing the useful contact information. I've just sent letters thanking Scholastic for including this excellent book in their catalogue.
To moby clarke, what exactly is the problem with including representations of what you refer to as "minorities" in books for children ? Children live in a diverse world populated by people of different ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, languages and ways of life, and the reality is that some children have same-sex parents. Why should those kids not see their reality reflected in what they read?
Where do we draw the line? Why should we not have books about kids living in slavery, cause we do not want to leave them out.
You guys all just made the point I was trying to make. You have no moral compass. What ever group comes along demanding their way of life is "normal", you just fall into line and give your stamp of approval and then force the rest of us to be subject to it as well. I can't wait to see the newest relase: "My 23 mommies and 6 daddies can beat up your dog."
Just because something is not your own personal experience does not make it "not normal" for someone else, moby. Part of growing up is learning to accept that others are different from you and their experiences and feelings are different from your own.
Right... just because I have never had relations with pigs or cows, or maybe even the dead, doesn't mean it's "not normal" for someone else to. And that they therefore should not have the right to teach my children about how they are different...hmmmmm.
I know I'll get blasted for this...but all in all its what society is coming to by doing "what's right in our own eyes."
Declination of a society starts with openess to same sex relations, then Bestiality, then Necrophilia, then societal collapse. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither did it fall in a day. Rome had all these unnatural relational progressions in affect at the time of it's decline. Moral decline was at the heart of it's structural decline.
I know this goes against the present forceful grain...but afterall this is "Opposing Views" isn't it?
jmatsilv :)
PS: "Some" heterosexual couples cannot produce children without medical assistance. Due to physical abnormalities. However "NO" same sex couple can produce children at any time or under any circumstance without medical or adoptive intervention without physical abnormalities....another hmmmmmmmmm.
There is considerable difference between a gay relationship and the examples you bring up -- namely that none of your examples is between two, adult, consenting human beings. Animals cannot give consent, nor can dead bodies.
There have been same-gender relationships for as long as there have been human beings and it has never yet led to "societal collapse." Drop the hyperbole and false "comparisons." They do not help your argument one bit.
Incidentally, yeah, a lesbian can have a baby without medical intervention, adoption or physical abnormalities. So can a gay man. All they need is a willing surrogate or donor. And there are many, many willing surrogates and donors.
One thing a lesbian or gay man can NEVER have: an unwanted "oopsie" accidental pregnancy , leading to either an abortion or an unwanted baby. I'd say that's a huge plus.
Babaroni said "Incidentally, yeah, a lesbian can have a baby without medical intervention, adoption or physical abnormalities. So can a gay man. All they need is a willing surrogate or donor. And there are many, many willing surrogates and donors."
Yes! Thank you for proving my previous point, it is impossible for any same sex relationship to reproduce on their own without some time type of outside intervention. Nothing can happen unless they go outside of their supposed union to do so. If their same sex union was indeed natural "as they say", then there would normally be no need for outside intervention to reproduce and form a family unit.
Yet the fact remains that they will ALWAYS NEED outside intervention. Heterosexual couples only need outside intervention when their NATURAL FUNCTIONS are in a state of malfunction.
Before surrogate technology aka "Medical Intervention" was discovered, same sex relationships acknowledged the utterly natural truth that it takes opposite sexes to procreate. So if they were to continue in their unnatural relationship they would have to accept the natural consequence, no reproduction. A lesbian women NEEDS a man's surrogate sperm...ahhh why is that? Right women don't produce sperm; they produce "the egg".
I don't understand why people try to deny natural life functions to justify their unnatural life styles....I really don't. Face it people... same sex is a dead branch, that is, on its own it cannot be fruitful.
jmatsilv
When did reproduction become the purpose of marriage ?
The same is true for many infertile couples, jmatsilv. Yet we do not deny marriage to infertile couples (or to couples who do not wish to procreate or who are beyond the age where procreation is possible). Since gay couples raise children all the time, including adopting the unwanted cast-offs of straight couples who procreate irresponsibly, gay couples deserve the same societal supports and incentives provided to straight couples.
There is no procreational requirement placed upon civil marriage, and to exclude couples from civil marriage based upon such a rationale is hypocritical, at best.
As to "unnatural," it would be far more unnatural for a gay person to attempt to marry someone of the opposite gender than of their own gender. Just as it is unnatural to YOU to consider marrying someone of your same gender. Just because something is "unnatural" for you does not make it "unnatural for someone else." For gay people, being gay is the most natural thing in the world. If you could take just a moment to think outside your own, very tiny box, you might see how that would be the case.
And I say it again...
Albeit "Some" heterosexual couples cannot produce children without medical assistance due to unnatural physical abnormalities. However "NO" same sex couple can produce children at any time or under any circumstance without medical or adoptive intervention without physical abnormalities....another.
Or maybe I should pose it as a question... Is it possible for any same sex couple at any time without external intervention to reproduce? We all know the answer is resoundingly "NO".
So just in case your box is "a little too tiny" as you feel mine is, let me speak the truth of the matter clearly. "SOME" heterosexual couples are unable to bear children due to abnormalities in their innate natural ablity to reproduce and need outside intervention. However "ALL" same sex couples absolutely require beyond a shadow of a doubt outside intervention to procreate at any time.WHY IS THAT?
No one seems to want to answer this question. Although I'm sure it's due to the implications of the answer.
And by the way, denying reality is not really "thinking outside the box". For example: I can deny the fact that my car needs gas to run, because I'm tired of the reality of paying high gas prices . So...that's it, I'm going to run my car without gas cause I don't like the way it makes me feel to pay so much for gas. However the ultimate truth is, my car is not going anywhere without gas. That's the ultimate truth. We live by ultimate truth everyday in everything we do, yet when it comes to societal morals, we think it doesn't exist anymore.
Peace out...I will no longer respond to the futility of this argument.
jmatsilv