Diversity of the World for Children - Essay Example

? Diversity of the world for children Introduction Gay marriage is often discussed by contemporaries. Whether homosexuality is a sexual or psychological deviance or is it a norm, should it be public or not and many other issues are high on the agenda nowadays. The children’s literature is another sphere, which is properly considered in the modern world as a really important phenomenon of the modern life. In the book “Daddy’s Roommate” by Willhoite (1990) these issues are correlated. Whether children literature should illustrate phenomenon of homosexuality or not is argued further on. Thesis: In spite of different stereotypes, gay relationships are present in the modern world and there is no need to avoid this demonstration of the world’s diversity. It is better to position gay relationships as another kind of love, which is the way to happiness, as the author of the book claims. Summary The book “Daddy’s Roommate” by Willhoite shows to the modern readers a challenging problem of living in family of two gays. Basically, homosexual parents do not differ from heterosexual parents. There is a strong emotional bound between two parents and a boy. They go shopping, gardening, making trips to the zoo. There are affectionate relationships between these two parents and boy is growing up surrounded with a great care and tolerance. There is a friendly atmosphere in their family. For this small boy being gay is just another kind of love. It is not a socially perverted representation of love it does not violate moral norms and it is not against social stereotypes. Analysis There are equal incongruities between gay couples and heterosexual couples: the author presents that there are even fights between two gay parents (Willhoite 1990, pp.8-12), but it is possible to underline that heterosexual couples are often quarrel and even fight. Moreover, the book does not promote gay love, it tells about gay love as about another kind of love. There is a story about two adult men, who are gay. They are not young and their relationship is stable. There is a tendency to establish short-term love relationship among heterosexual young people, as well as among homosexual young people. The point of the book is different. It informs about gay relationships, it neither criticizes nor promotes it. Gay relationship is shown as is. The book shows that in the course of time there is a natural necessity to appreciate the beloved person and there is a need to contribute much into the development of mutual happiness. Gay family is positioned as a final point of two lonely hearts’ wanderings. Both men are pacified and put their mutual efforts into social development, social activity etc. The ban In spite of criticism against the book, there are also proponents of the book and they argue against the book’s ban. On January 20, 1998, the Hays (Kansas) public library board showed antagonistic moods against the book’s ban. Their main claim coincided with the main claim of a small boy, the main character of the book. This book was another depiction of love and a homosexual life style did not differ much from life style of other couples. In accordance with the moods of the Library Director Melanie Miller: “I do not believe in restricting access to those child library patrons who would benefit from the book because there are parents who do not believe that their children should have access to the material” (Nava and Dawidoff 1995, p. 34). Another claim is made by the Brevard County (Florida) Library Board, which removed the book from the library shelves. The members of the Christian Coalition made an emphasis on the absence of necessity to leave the book in the library. As a result, de facto censorship was criticized by the readers. There is an evident struggle against the book and in 1999 the Nampa (Idaho) Library Board decided to leave Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies in the juvenile nonfiction section. The staff of the library claims that there is no book, which would be acclaimed by all parents to the fullest extent. Unfortunately, the antagonists of the books claimed that they were dissatisfied with the Board’s decision. They claim that proponents of the book are not open for open debate and their decisions do not have a strong background. Further debate lasted and on November 17, 2000, in the Ada (Idaho) Community Library, the Board of Trustees did not answer to a request of the Director to remove the book to the section of adult literature. The majority of voices supported the decision to leave the book in the section of social issues in the books for children on social issues (Clyde, Lobban 2001, p. 59). The visitors of the library had different moods as well. Thus, one woman emphasized that she did not want her children to come across the book. The parents should have an access to the book in their own section and they should be able to decide whether to allow their children reading the book or not. In Texas severe arguments were initiated by city council’s members against propagation of books about gay and lesbian parents. They think that there is a need for parents to protect their children from undesirable written materials. A personal argument Therefore, both antagonists and proponents of such kind of books have their own ideas. There is no need to support or discard the ideas of both of them. It is better to counterbalance the ideas and direct argumentation of both parties to the search of truth. Any phenomenon can be judged as positive or negative, there is no need to argue, there is a need to find a common solution through argumentation. My personal opinion is to unite the efforts of proponents and antagonists of such kind of books and to develop the best ways of the society’s informing about diversity of a modern life. Moreover, there is a need to reconceptualize representation of intimate relations of people. It is better to emphasize on their social behavior and not on their sexual preferences. Solution Firstly, it is possible to clarify the statement of the book’s antagonists that gay relationships are unstable and there is no need to tell about this kind of love to the children. This point can be argued, because there is a constant turmoil in relationships of heterosexual couples as well. To support the author’s intention, which describes a harmonious relationship between two gays, let us consider the following statement: gays are “loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law” (Clyde, Lobban 2001, p. 59). Therefore, we can see that little boy did not suffer from such kind of love. He was surrounded with love, understanding and a constant support. There is no need to criticize and ban this book, because it shows one more option of love and care. Secondly, antagonists of the book claim that there is an evident propagation of sexual deviance and gay relationship is nothing more than sexual enjoinment. The proponents claim that homosexuality is the inner essence of a person. There is a specific consciousness of a homosexual individual (Moats, 2004). Homosexuality is the integrative part of the individual’s essence. It is clearly seen that homosexual partners in the book are not looking for an option to reveal their specific homosexual identity. They exist within their homosexuality and are looking in the world from their own specific point of view. Consequently, gay parents are supposedly creating an unhealthy atmosphere for children uprising. There is a need to argue, because the boy did not suffer from gay relationships of his father. Gay parents are attentive, they are very tender and they pay a proper attention to every aspect of a child’s life (Eskridge, 1996). Of course, gay parents cannot procreate to the fullest extent of this concept, but they can raise their children carefully and attentively. Thirdly, the proponents of the book’s ban underline that parents are intimidated by the fact that such kind of books is another option to turn children into a “slippery slope" and these books are equal to those, which may propagate legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy etc (Bidstrup). There is a need to underline that social reaction to the book is not justified and is rather weird. The author intended to inform the children about the diversity of human life. Homosexuality is not positioned as a “slippery slope” by the author. Vice versa, he presents a positive side of this kind of love and every kind of love is just a way to happiness (Willhoite 1990, p. 32). Gay father is not imposing his sexual preferences on his child. He coexists with his gay partner and pays a great attention to the son’s upbringing. The author’s intention can be correlated with the statements of different psychologists and researchers, who claimed that homosexuality is “a perfectly normal variation on how humans develop, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from science that there are sound reasons why it has evolved, and why it is not selected against in evolutionary pressure” (Bawr 1994, p. 36). In order to deal with ban on such books, there is a need to transform and shape the minds of the modern people. The contemporaries live under conditions of the globalized world. A modern life is diverse and children should be aware of different social phenomena. Therefore, instead of ban on such books it is better to educate children on diverse issues, both positive and negative. A modern child should be ready for unexpected phenomena and he should be aware of the way of a proper behavior. Consequently, if there are no features of psychological or health deviance among gays, than it is not scaring for humanity. It is better to stop antagonistic moods concerning gay families, because a desire of gay couples to serve in favor of their families and the whole society shouldn’t be discarded. Conclusion There is a need to develop socially tolerant policies to the discussion of the most controversial phenomena. In spite of different opinions, the books about gay relationships perform and educating functions and present to children that there are different kinds of love. Moreover, gay family is positioned as a favorable atmosphere for children upbringing and parents with antagonistic moods should not close the eyes of their children to the modern realities. There is a need to educate modern children how to be open and tolerant to diversities of life, how to accept children from either heterosexual or homosexual families. A promotion of a humane attitude is much more important than following the perverted social and moral stereotypes developed with regards to gay couples. Works cited 1. Bawr, B. A Place at The table. Simon & Schuster, 1994. 2. Bidstrup, Scott. "Gay Marriage, the Arguments and the Motives". 21 Nov. 2011. 3. Clyde, L.A., Lobban, M. “A Door Half Open: Young People's Access to Fiction Related to Homosexuality”. School Libraries Worldwide 7 (2001): p. 56+. 4. Eskridge, W. N. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment. Free Press, 1996. 5. Moats, D. “Fear Itself: Meditations on Gay Marriage”. The Virginia Quarterly Review 80 (2004): p.32+. 6. Nava, M. and Dawidoff, R. Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. St. Martin's Griffin, 1995. 7. Willhoite, M. (1990). Daddy's Roommate. Los Angeles: Alyson Publication, 1990. Read More