A law proposed to ban all books that mention gays

Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen is on record as wanting to ban gay marriage, but now he's turned his attention to the state's libraries--both public and school. Allen wants to pass a law to ban books with gay characters. He also wants textbooks that suggest homosexuality is okay out of state schools.
News Channel 19

State schools to include colleges. If this law was to pass, colleges couldn't perform certain plays, and public libraries would lose many literary masterpieces.

If passed, Alabama's libraries would be robbed of works by celebrated authors such as Herman Melville, Tennessee Williams, Willa Cather, Carson McCullers, John Cheever, Alice Walker, James Baldwin, Truman Capote, and Gore Vidal, to name just a few on what would be a very long list.
The Advocate

Not that this Congressman is advocating book burning. His answer?

Build a "big hole and dump them in and bury them."
News Max

A wacko? Maybe, but this wacko is an elected official of the United States government. He may lack the polish and shine of others in the government, but the American Taliban is forming. A theocracy is threatening to overtake the USA. It's sad that, like radical Muslims tarnish Islam, these radical Christians tarnish Christianity.

He's a very enlightened man, I can see that. Maybe he should recommend that those who do sale books featuring gays be burned at the stake as witches.

Ban the bible. Be gay and marry it says.

Originally posted by curme
Alabama State Representative Gerald Allen is on record as wanting to ban gay marriage, but now he's turned his attention to the state's libraries--both public and school. Allen wants to pass a law to ban books with gay characters.

I am curious, anyone on ATS from the formerly great state of alabama actually vote for this anti-american guy?

Since Bush does not advocate gay marriage and most polls say that most of the people don't want gay marriage...
I'm afraid that this means everything to do with "gay" can now be more openly condemned. Homophobia is'nt homophobia anymore it's "morality".
I don't condone the banning of books, especially by the government.

Can you say political grandstanding? Such a proposal is ludicrous when taken to the extreme, however, it is not so extreme when you consider that there are books availble to young children whose sole purpose is to normalize homosexuality in the minds of those children. It would not be unfair to target such books, but perhaps the gentleman in question feels that such selectivity might be self-defeating or perhaps might grab fewer headlines.

It's funny how we've accepted things like MURDER, WAR, RAPE, and TORTURE but not homosexuality.

Where are the cries to eliminate books with these things?

Why not get rid of books with characters that are murderers, rapists, drug addicts, prostitutes, and the like?



Anyway, hearing Gerald Allen try to talk his way into Heaven would sure be one funny conversation, that's for sure.

I'm afraid that this means everything to do with "gay" can now be more openly condemned. Homophobia is'nt homophobia anymore it's "morality".

I think you just hit the nail on the head Elaine. I didn't see it that way but whether by chance or design that seems to be what is happening.

Hey, homophobia seemed to get Bush re-elected, so I guess he figured why the hell not?

I'm surprised, considering as some would assert, that the US is now under the political heel of a liberal, hedonistic, elite gay minority. Shouldn't you be burning books with straight characters in them by now?

Ironically, Dick Cheney's wife wrote a book called Sisters full of stuff like lesbian love, prostitution and rape. Which of course, would have to be banned from public libraries and colleges.

There is no such thing as social change without backlash, and this is an example.

On the bright side, the days of homosexuals being imprisoned or committed to mental institutions (perhaps to be lobotomized) to cure their "criminal illness" are largely behind us in the United States, but to expect any society to change so dramatically without repercussions is both naive and wrong-headed.

A lot of changes have already taken place, and homosexuals have made significant progress in a short period of time. But nothing is free, and the future of the movement to legitimize homosexuality in the U.S. remains cloudy.

Of course, the "gay rights movement" has made more progress in predominantly secular and Christian societies than in predominantly Muslim societies, but I guess no one is too surprised about that. Gays are still routinely and publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia, for example, and things aren't much better in other Muslim nations. But I suppose that observation might be thought of as off-topic.

This particular case is somewhat symbolic, but there are many less-extreme currents moving to fill the gap left by a revolutionary push for acceptance of homosexuality.

We'll see how it goes.

books that mention gays open the door to banning other books that society feels is inappropriate?

I am from the state of Alabama and no I didn't vote for Gerald Allen because I did not live in his district.

As for his idea I think banning all literary works that include fictional gay characters ludicrous. You would lose for example Cat on a Hot tin roof which is an absolute classic. I think this is stupid.

However, I do agree with the idea of removing text books that suggest homosexuality is natural. Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, what if there were text books that suggested homosexuality was un-natural? You wouldn't like that too much now would you? The fact of the matter is that homosexuality has not been defintely proven to be genetic or choice yet so it should be presented as such not natural or un-natural.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
However, I do agree with the idea of removing text books that suggest homosexuality is natural. Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, what if there were text books that suggested homosexuality was un-natural? You wouldn't like that too much now would you?

I personally would support both views to be available. The old, "I don't agree with you but will die for your yadda yada".