Reddish Musings

I'm going to do something shocking.

I'm going to defend the Twilight series.

...okay, back from puking in my mouth a little.

All right, so, much like any other popular young adult fiction in this decade, the Twilight series are under attack from "concerned" parents.  These parents are so concerned with what their children are reading that they are challenging the books' rights to be in public libraries.

Now, part of me quails at the idea that this means Twilight and Harry Potter are somewhat related to each other.  In fact, according to this article, Harry Potter books aren't even in the top 10 of challenged books anymore, meaning Twilight is beating the HP series at something.  Even if that "something" is really "pissing off Christian parents who can't be bothered to actually investigate what their children read," that just isn't right.  Come on, pastors! Keep preaching the evils of black magic over the evils of lame vampires!

I kid.

Whenever I hear about books being challenged, banned, or burned, it makes me angry.  I don't care what is in the book, how much I like or dislike the material, the author, the characters, any of it.  The idea that someone out there can decide what is okay for me to read angers me.

But these parents have been on crusades since public libraries began, I imagine. There have always been "edgy" authors who endorse sex, magic, drugs, alcohol, and anything else that these people feel will cause their children to immediately join gangs and go to jail without passing Go.  There will always be misguided parents who feel that the only way they can keep their children in line is to purify the world around them, rather than encouraging their children to make good decisions based on their shared morals. It's sad, really.

The idea that libraries should not be allowed to carry these books at ALL shows no trust in your children, no ability in yourself to monitor what your children read, and an obnoxious arrogance to assume you can control OTHER people's reading choices.

However, like I said, these little wars against books have been happening for a long time, so I don't really waste my time getting worked up over every indictment against a novel with dirty things in it.

What upsets me this time around is that some people are supporting it, only because it's Twilight.


I get it.  I do.  I don't like the books, either.  But before we all grab our torches and pitchforks, remember who you're giving the power by joining the fight.  You are not giving power to the intelligent elites on the internet.  You are not giving power to people with good taste.  You're giving power to people who argue that Pokemon endorses communion with demons.  You're giving power to people who think Harry Potter  teaches you how to kill people with "Latin Words."  You're giving power to people who wanted to ban Shel Silversteins A Light In The Attic because it had "a suggestive illustration that might encourage kids to break dishes so they won't have to dry them."

If you don't like Twilight, that is completely okay.  You're not alone.  But I'm pretty sure I read some books that other people don't like. I also know that it's way more fun to bicker about taste in books than it is to all read nothing but The Bible* all day.

So, encourage people to read better things.  Don't ban them from reading the bad things.

~Red

*Nevermind the part where The Bible has a lot of magic, sex, drugs, and murder in it, too.  Somehow that always gets overlooked.

So, up there with abortion in the ranks of issues that will continue to divide Americans on "moral" grounds yet will never actually be cemented in stone (because then nobody would come out to vote), is gay marriage. Some people are for it (equal rights!) some people are against it (one man, one woman!), and each have their logical and illogical reasons backing them up.

But the phrase that gets tossed around a little too much for my comfort is that we need to "protect" marriage. The sanctity of marriage is under attack! One man, one woman! O noes!

Let's look at this, for a moment. Why do people start attacks and thus wage wars? There are normally a couple reasons: The Attackers want to destroy it, or the Attackers want to take over it.

In the first scenario, it's pretty easy to wave that off as nonsense. The LGBT community (and however many other letters they've added lately - first the rainbow, now the alphabet. Share, people!) has little interest overall in wiping out marriage as an institution. There are those who hold that marriage should not be a government thing, that it should be put back into the hands of religions and privately dealt with so as to remove this whole debacle anyway, but the majority of people are not saying they want it gone for good. I mean, think about it - if they wanted to wipe out marriage, they wouldn't be petitioning to be granted the right to GET married.

That would be like wanting to destroy the Christian church by reading the Bible and paying tithes every Sunday. Given that "Marriage" isn't even an actual location or group of people, there's no way that infiltration would do any good, even if that was their goal.

So, no, they aren't out to destroy it.

Now, are they out to take it over? Again, let's think about this: In the history of wars, overtaking a country normally had one of two or three outcomes. Either the people who used to live there were destroyed and the Attackers take over, or the people are permitted to stay there, either to be assimilated into the new society or to pay tribute to remain as they were.

Let's talk about the first idea: Do the Gays want to storm in, wipe out heterosexual marriages, and claim marriage as a Homosexual-Only institution? No. That's what Heterosexual fundamentalists are doing right now. Most couples just want the right to be married, regardless of whether they're in the current phase of their relationships to do so RIGHT NOW. They want the tax breaks, the hospital visitation, the next of kin rights. They want adoptions, they want to live a normal, happy, monogamous life. That should make opponents of the "Homosexual Agenda" happy, since they normally point to how adulterous and dishonest the dating gay world can be. How dare they want to settle down and be boring like the rest of us? Buh?

So, that leaves the other option: Are the homosexuals attacking marriage in order to rule over it? Seeing that I have heard no legislative ideas that require heterosexual couples already married or seeking marriage licenses to pay tributes to the Gay Marriage Czars, I think not. Nor do they really seem to be hunting down straight couples in order to sway them to the gay persuasion.

Some war. It's really more like immigration. They want IN to the marriage world, not to take over it. They want to function in its society, legally, and get all of the perks of participating in it as the current citizens get. Civil Unions are really like visas, but marriage would be akin to a permanent citizenship being granted. And those gays living together? Well, I guess they're the illegals? It's a faulty metaphor, I'll agree, but it works for a little bit.

You can oppose to gay marriage all you like, and I can't do anything to stop you. That's your right, and I'm not going to challenge it. All I ask is this - whose marriage would really be endangered by the ability of some couple somewhere in the country to get married? Who would really be at threat in that scenario? The couples who can participate in society and have to deal with Homeowner's Associations and taxation and insurance policies just like everyone else? The kids who are adopted into loving homes instead of being left floating around in the foster system? YOUR marriage?

In short, my opinion still stays the same, albeit somewhat trite and abrasive: If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. But no gay man or woman will be knocking down your door to take your wedding rings away from you anytime soon. So chill out.