Local PhD expresses concern

Statement of concern:

I am concerned over the presence of books supporting non-heterosexuality in the library. I do not accept that these books are protected under the Library Bill of Rights.

A library is not only to provide for materials of “interest, information, and enlightenment”. It is a keeper of knowledge for the edification of the society it serves. This is implicit. To my knowledge the OC Library doesn’t have a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook, Terrorist Handbook, pornographic materials, guides on waging Jihad, etc. It is accepted without question that such materials would not be of benefit to society and fall outside of the Library Bill of Rights. For the benefit of the community certain materials must be excluded or at least kept from certain readers until they are old enough to properly process the materials.

The minds of children are impressionable and easily influenced by materials. The inclusion of materials that promote a positive image of non-heterosexuality is not innoxious. There is mounting evidence that for a large percentage of youth, sexuality is plastic during the teen years (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/sexualityandgender ). Society should encourage heterosexual behavior. This is not only because of some religious doctrine but for the health of the individuals and society.

Non-heterosexuals have far higher incidence of psychiatric disorders (depression, suicide etc…) (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/sexualityandgender). Those that report non- heterosexual encounters in their teen years but returned to a normal heterosexual orientation do not have the same incidence of psychiatric disorders as those that continue in a non- heterosexual orientation. While it is still unsettled how much flexibility there is in sexual orientation, for as much as 80% of those with same-sex attraction in adolescence are exclusively heterosexual as adults. It is not determined what the causes of the increased incidence of psychiatric disorders are but it does seem that much of it can be avoided by forming a heterosexual identity. The dangers are even greater for transgender individuals. Contrary to popular belief, embracing transgender identities, or sex-changes, does not improve the mental health of individuals, in fact the scientific evidence points to the contrary. The argument that a negative social stigma against non-heterosexuals is the cause of their psychiatric problems is refuted by the scientific literature which shows no change in the incidence of mental health issues over the decades, even as social acceptance has greatly increased. A more open, inclusive society does not improve mental health outcomes. Presenting non-heterosexuality to minors could be a serious danger to them, causing long- term psychological harm.

It is important to accept that OC library serves a predominantly Christian community, the parents of which endeavor to raise their children in a Godly manner and encourage them to be holy as God is holy(1). That holiness precludes presenting non-heterosexuality in an approving manner for “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So, they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matt 19:5–7). To keep materials that approve of non-heterosexual behavior is in opposition with the goals of community parents.

While it may not be possible to ban these books from the library they should at the very least have age-restricted access. Those younger than 18 should not have access to these materials without parental supervision.

 


1 1 Peter 1:16 refers to Leviticus 19–20 which lays out what is meant by “being holy as God is holy” and clearly contradicts non-heterosexual actions as being acceptable to God. And note also that the construct in the Septuagint for Lev 18:21 and 19:13 is arsenokoites, the same construct Paul uses in 1

Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Paul assumes his readers were familiar with the Septuagint and would not have used this term accidentally to mean something else. If Paul meant something else then the Holy Spirit is the cruelest prankster and Richard Dawkins is right, our God isn’t worthy of worship.