Of libraries and children

The current debate on same sex relations has engendered (ha!) some superficially attractive, but fundamentally flimsy myths.  Let's examine them.

MYTH 1: Family structure doesn't matter.  Love matters.

Do you agree that in the majority of cases, the interests of a child are better served by having a father and a mother, than in a single parent or same sex parent family?  If you're honest, the answer is, yes.

Why?  Because a father has a father's role, and a mother hers.  There are some astoundingly capable and loving single parents out there.  But a mother, as capable as she is, can never be as effective as a father.  A father, as loving as he is, can never truly play the role of a mother.  If you're a parent, you just know that.  Otherwise what you're really saying is that you're actually better off without a good father, or better off without a good mother.  I don't think anyone out there is loopy enough to actually take this position.

As a child (which everyone is), don't you wish you had both a loving father and mother?  Come on, be honest.  I do.  You do too.  You know it.  In your heart of hearts.  You may never even have experienced it personally.  But deep down, we simply know that the ideal is to have a great Mom AND a great Dad.

I know it may be uncool to admit it in front of your cool, hip and modern friends.  But once you're honest enough to accept this, then my friend, you are in the pro-family camp, whether you know it or like it or not.

So - does family structure matter?  Of course.  It's better with one great Dad, one great Mom, deeply loved kids, and honoured parents.  Are there alternative family structures?  Single parent families by way of divorce or bereavement?  Same sex families where the law allows it?  Yes.  Can children grow up well in such families?  Possible.  But are such structures sub-optimal?  Yes, of course, unless you're prepared to say that one great Dad, one great Mom and deeply loved kids is not the optimal, and that you're somehow better off in a single parent and same sex parent family.

THEREFORE...

MYTH 2:  Children should be exposed to alternative lifestyles so that they learn to be more tolerant.

As demonstrated above, there IS such a thing as an optimal family structure.  That being the case, the norm for our children should be to aspire towards that optimal family structure.  Let's face it.  The words "tolerant" and "inclusive" are used a lot these days to giftwrap the headlong rush towards the lowest common denominator.

Giving up on your marriage because you met someone else better?  It's OK, follow your heart.

Don't like exercising to keep fit?  It's OK, you don't have to care if you're overweight.

Addicted to pornography?  It's OK, you're born this way, we'll treat it as "sex addiction".  On a sidenote, you may wish to read this unbelievable story about Robert Downey Jr blaming his son's drug addiction on genetics.  Never mind about having to find the drugs, source for the smoking apparatus, and then hide away while you snort.  Apparently nothing is our responsibility or fault any more.

Are there situations where a marriage ends because of bereavement, or spousal abuse?  Yes.  Are there situations where a physical condition simply prevents you from exercising?  Sure.  Are there situations where a person becomes addicted to pornography or drugs because of internal or external circumstances? Of course.  Should we provide absolute love and support for people in these situations?  Absolutely.

But are any of these scenarios optimal?  No.  Should our children be encouraged to aspire to the optimal?  Yes.  That's why children's books should teach them optimal values of honesty, determination, courage, and yes, the traditional family.  So, should we have books in the public libraries and education in our schools to tell our children that "alternatives" are perfectly fine and therefore normalise the lifestyle of being divorced, physically unfit, addicted or otherwise sub-optimal?  I think the answer is obvious.  No.

AND SO WE COME TO...

3.  MYTH 3: Libraries are repositories for knowledge and should not take a policy stand on books

I've heard some say that "if you are a lover of books and knowledge" you cannot agree with the NLB's decision to remove "those books" from the library.

Come on.  Think things through before you say or accept them.  Take smoking.  Would anyone have a problem if the NLB decided it would not carry a children's book explaining why smoking is a perfectly legitimate alternative lifestyle?

The point is that libraries ALWAYS exercise judgment about the merits of the books they bring in.  What's next - "50 Shades of Grey - the Kids Version"?  "Mein Kampf - the Pre-Teen Neo-Nazi Guide"?

No thinking person should be prepared to trot out the fundamentally baseless argument that knowledge for its own sake is useful for broadening our children's horizons.  What the NLB did was right.  It may be popular with some and not so popular for others but their job is to make the right call.

WHICH BRINGS US NEATLY TO...

4.  MYTH 4: Children should be allowed to decide for themselves

There's an argument that children should be allowed to read about these alternatives so they can decide for themselves.  Let children make up their own minds.

Are you even hearing yourself?  Children are precisely the people who shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves.  That's why they're children.  That's why they can't sign contracts.  That's why they can't buy alcohol or cigarettes.  That's why they need to go to school.  The only thing they should be allowed to decide for themselves without guidance is the stuff that doesn't really matter, like whether they have hae mee or chicken rice for lunch today.  And even for those decisions, you don't let your kids eat chicken rice every day!  For every decision that actually matters, that's what parental guidance is for.

At the risk of repeating myself, the fact of the matter is that we know that a one father, one mother parental unit is the ideal.  That's why we promote it. Pro-actively teaching children that alternative family structures are "normal" is selling our children short.  It normalises a sub-optimal family structure.

Let's be clear - A child who never gets taught ideals, will fail to see them as ideals, and will not aspire towards them.  That's why we teach our children to be honest, courageous, determined, obedient, filial and so on. And that's why our libraries rightly enforce a pro-family policy on children's books.  A traditional family simply is the ideal.

This is the heart of the issue - if you say it's OK for our children to be taught to accept everything, then you're depriving them of ideals.  So think carefully before you say something like that again.

Conclusion...

In our wild attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator, we are overly eager to tell ourselves, and now it appears, teach our children, that it's OK to be sub-optimal, it's OK to be physically unfit, to be addicted, to be disobedient.  In fact, just give in to your base instincts, celebrate them, pat yourself on the back, it's what makes you unique, you're born like that, so you'll forever be a prisoner to your animal instincts, just follow your heart.

Giving in to your base instincts is not freedom my friends.  It's the complete opposite.  We are made men so that we have the freedom to struggle, and the freedom to choose.

So let's give the human race some credit.  We absolutely and unconditionally love and support those of us who struggle.  But we CAN reach for ideals.  Approving everything is not open-mindedness.  It's spinelessness.  It's woolly thinking.  Such so-called approval is not even indicative of love.  As I've said before, if you disagree with your child's behaviour, you don't approve of it precisely because you DO love your child.  It's precisely when you don't care about the child that you give approval willy-nilly.

So as this debate continues to run its course, I urge you to examine the issues beyond the surface.  Look beyond the labels and the name-calling.  In this hyper-liberal world, pro-family = narrow-minded, bigoted mouth-breather.  Pro-LGBT = enlightened and evolved.  So, basically what you're saying is what you believe is right and what I believe is wrong.  But I'm narrow minded and you're enlightened.  Hmm.  You know, I still love you anyway.  And that's why I'm speaking out to explode these myths.  For you, for me, for our children and our future.