By Nancy S. Earnhardt, Rushford MN
June 10 was a lovely evening, and I would have loved to be anywhere else as well. I appreciate your well delivered letter and I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning censoring information. Trust me, I have experienced that firsthand, especially in the last four years. Heaven knows censoring is nothing new to this world.
Even now, I would rather be enjoying my evening, than writing this response, but hence I cannot ignore your thoughts without making some comments.
• Since every family has a right to raise their children as they see fit, books of a homosexual nature for children should rightfully be censored through the parents. Some parents are fine with it, but many are not.
• Children are not fully grown humans and need guidance until they are considered an adult by society and able to make their own mature decisions and conclusions. Books that teach an unnatural affection between humans should not be accessible without parental guidance.
• Just because a child might have an unnatural attraction to the same sex at a certain point in life does not automatically mean they are a homosexual. Forcing or affirming that belief in a child before they are old enough to truly understand why they feel that way is abuse.
• The reason the pro-homosexual agenda community members outnumbered the community members opposed to the distribution of these books throughout the library was because many are scared or unwilling to get involved. Today if one counters the counterculture, we are ostracized, shamed, and labeled haters and homophobic.
• In general, most people who do not support the homosexual agenda are not any of the above and have been judged and sentenced regardless.
• It seems that the current supporters of the homosexual agenda will never be satisfied until those opposed to their wishes are shut up forever, by threatening laws and corporate/government oppression that could put them at risk of losing their own freedoms to hire who they want and keep a job they worked hard to get.
• So if being homosexual is not about relationships that are sexual in nature, like what happens between a man and a woman that are in a relationship, what is the point? I and many I know love others very much and enjoy being close to them… but those relationships do not normally end up sexual. If homosexuality is not about the intent of having a sexual relationship with the same sex, what is it?
• Nature proves that sex was intended to be between a male and a female, the result being pro-creation. Nature does not support homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural to this world, and that is reality.
• You are loved, I said my peace.
Mike Miller says
Nancy thank you for writing the rebuttal in the Fillmore journal. I am so proud of you because you represent the unspoken majority. I would like to thank you personally. Sincerely Mike Miller ph 507 500 9821
Mike Miller says
Nancy. I am so proud of your editorial and would love to thank you. Call me please,if you have the time. Mike Miller Caledonia Mn 507 500 9821 ps would love to write editorials myself but hear way more than I can remember! Thank you.
Anonymous says
Nancy you are spot on. I guess that makes me homophobic, but I fear none of you. I just think you are mentally and religiously corrupt.
Jon Trouten says
One of my pet peeves is when someone complains about being censored while being published in a newspaper or while talking about how they communicated their perspective in a public meeting. And let’s not get into the irony of them pushing to censor a perspective that they disagree with while complaining that others are trying to shut them up forever. I also hate it when people complain that others call them haters or homophobic while accusing those they disagree with of being unnatural or abusive.
I don’t have a lot to say about Nancy Earnhardt’s commentary piece outside of noting that libraries are famously known for possessing hundreds of books for both children and adults. Most of them have nothing to do with LGBTQ content. Nobody is required to check out anything that they don’t want to check out. I might suggest that the next time that her kids make the 40 mile bike-ride from Rushford to the Harmony Library that she reminds them that they aren’t allowed to check out any of the books that include any LGBTQ themes. That’s okay. They can find other books.
But even Nancy concedes in her commentary that other parents are fine with their children checking out books that contain LGBTQ themes. Why censor their preferences just because she disagree with them?
Lastly, it’s true that there is a sexual element to most same-sex relationships. There’s also a romantic element to our relationships as well, just like I’m sure that there’s a sexual and romantic element to Nancy’s own marriage. That doesn’t mean that books like “Heather Has Two Mommies” or “Glitter Boy” or “Prince & Knight” are sexual, any more than other non-LGBTQ books like “Berenstain Bears,” “Little House on the Prairie,” and “Love You Forever.” Sometimes a book just tells a story using its own unique voice. And libraries should be free to offer all sorts of unique voices.
Steve Ellis says
Hear, hear! What y0u wrote hits just the right note.
Steve Ellis says
To speak plainly, your views are homophobic and cruel. Like all of us, you most certainly have family, friends, neighbors, or workmates who are “unnatural” as you put it.
(I wonder if you identify as a Christian. If you do, you seem to have forgotten that the New Testament is about love, not judgement.)
Anonymous says
I’ll keep my response brief : No matter how you dress up your comments, they are homophobic and cruel. You undoubtedly have friends, relatives or neighbors who are “unnatural” as you express it.
“You are loved”? Maybe tone down the hypocrisy a little bit at least.)
(I wonder if you identify as a “Christian”. If you do, you have clearly forgotten that the New Testament is about love, not judgement.)