Many of you, who gripe about the board's decision, don't have spouses (of the opposite gender) or children (legitimate) because of your messed up view of sex. So, you cannot understand people who wish to protect children from becoming like you.
Skaug’s post shows some really toxic attitudes and thinking. He says that many folks who disagreed with book banning are either single or homosexual. Many either don’t have kids, or have illegitimate bastard children.
These folks don’t have spouses or kids because of a “messed up view of sex.” I think that saying single people have messed up views of sex is a definitely minority opinion. Wasn’t Bruce single once? Were his sexual views messed up then? Did they change when he got married? Oh, wait, he’s okay, he’s not in the subset of disagreers, so we’ll leave him out. We’ll just leave it as, if you disagree with Bruce, and you’re single, you’re messed up sexually.
Bruce also somehow conflates having illegitimate children with messed up views about sex. What he’s saying is that having sex outside of marriage is messed up. Many religious types hold this view, but not so many practice it before they marry. If you disagree with Bruce, and you have sex when not married, you’re messed up sexually.
What gets me is the incredible narrowness of Bruce’s mind. You shine a light on Bruce’s brain and it’s so narrow that it won’t cast a shadow. Only very religious conservatism is acceptable; there are no other valid views in Bruce’s world. Everyone else is messed up sexually.
And Mayor Tom Dale put this guy on the LIBRARY BOARD?