Updated 08:10 pm.EST, Mon November 23, 2009

Society|Tue, Feb. 19 2008 02:26 PM EST

Schools Pull Children's Book About Same-Sex Penguin Couple

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

A children's book about two male penguins that hatched a chick together was pulled from school library shelves earlier this month in Loudoun County, Va., for its pro-gay message.

The 2005 award-winning book, "And Tango Makes Three," draws on the real-life story of Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York. The book, recommended by Simon & Schuster for children ages 4-8, says the two penguins sleep together and attempt to make a nest like other boy and girl penguin couples. At one point, an observer in the book says that the two "must be in love." Roy and Silo then name their chick "Tango" because it takes two to tango.

An unnamed parent at Loudoun's Sugarland Elementary School objected to the book several months ago and said it promoted a gay agenda, according to officials.

Following the complaint, the school principal and a district review committee comprised of principals, librarians and teachers convened to review the book. The group did not find the book inappropriate. A similar opinion was reached by a second committee that examined the book after the parent appealed the first review.

The final decision came from Superintendent Edgar Hatrick, who overruled them. He removed the 32-page book from the shelves of 16 elementary schools in Loudon County and placed it in the professional collection at each school library. Students can still access the book through the request by a parent or teacher.

According to officials, "Tango" is still in the general collection at one middle school and two high schools in the county, reported The Washington Post.

Wayde Bayard, spokesman for Loudoun County Schools, told Fox 5 News in Washington, D.C., that Hatrick thought the book's content might not be developmentally appropriate for some students.

"It might just explore some mature themes that younger children may not particularly understand," said Bayard.

He said it was "fine" that children were exposed to such themes but advised that a parent, adult, or teacher be with the children as they read the book.

Gay rights advocates have criticized the book's removal as censorship and rejects claims that the book is gay propaganda.

But according to Peter Parnell, co-author of the book, presenting the issue of same-sex couples to children was the aim of the book.

In a past interview with U.S. News, Parnell said he "wanted to write a book that treated the subject of same-sex couples that kids will adore."

"Tango is so cuddly. We're hoping kids will love it and beg their parents to read it again and again, since children are bumping into children from these same-sex families at school and at birthday parties. This [book] makes it comfortable for parents to talk about these families," he said in 2005.

The incident with Loudon County was not the first time the book has been protested by parents. In November 2006, parents of students of an elementary school in Shiloh, Ill., requested that the book be placed in a restricted section of the library and for the school to require students to get parental permission prior to checking the book out. They were turned down by the school superintendent. Other complaints had also surfaced in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois, according to the Boston Globe.

John Stevens, a school board member from Potomac, recently criticized Loudon Schools in his blog for not having policies that allow parents and gay rights activists to appeal Hatrick's decision.

He intends to propose a new set of policies at a committee meeting on March 4.

Although the book strives to highlight a somewhat success story of a non-traditional family, the two penguins at the center of the controversy have already split.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Okay, that post worked, now I shall try another. I think I was going to respond to your belief that it's okay to tell a child his/her "very nature" is unacceptable. The whole idea stems from the notion that same-sex attraction is a "vice" (like pedophilia, or perhaps kleptomania), and you cannot seem to find an analogy that doesn't involve a victim, so there is no valid analogy to justify maintaining the idea that acting on such attractions would be sinful.

    Furthermore, many parents have indeed told their children exactly that, and there are quite a few who wish every day that they could take it back and mend their relationships both with their kids and with God rather than lose both.

  • Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Actually, it was not conveniently on the last try. The post you read below was actually the third try after I gave up trying to stay on the subject. It happened on other articles too. In fact, this post right here is my third try once again.

  • Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    NoWire,

    Your point is? It doesn't change what it was.

    SheQuon,

    Looks like it worked! And conveniently on the last time when you had forgotten what you were going to say and not going to bother writing any response, only to tell us that you really did have a response! Glad to see it worked though.

  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Update: As of March 5, the book has been returned to the shelves, and it turns out the "unnamed parent" (Sherrie Sawyer) didn't even have a child in the school where it all started. (She's a TA in the district.) Also, the superintendent was stripped of the authority to unilaterally remove books.

  • Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I tried to post another response several times since 3/2, and got an error message every time. Now I've completely forgotten what I was going to say. This will be my last attempt, and if it works at least you'll know I wasn't not posting because I had no reply.

  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:16 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    shequon,
    Legally, there is a difference between stealing and homosexuality. Just as there is a difference between adultery and murder. But before God, they are all still sin. I am not here to make homosexuality a crime. I am here to warn those who involve themselves in that practice that it is a sin that will separate them from God.
    I would also agree that much of how a child or young adult acts is because of how the parent raises (or fails to raise) their child. Many parents aren't actively involved in their childrens lives. And because of that, their children will get their views of life and morals elsewhere. And it's usually not the best of places either. And sometimes the parents are involved, but their morals and ethics are so askew that it is passed on to their kids.
    But, to reiterate what I said earlier, just because something is not illegal, doesn't mean it's not a sin. What God calls a warning, people without a conscience call judging.

  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:10 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Finally you seem to think that we cannot tell a person their "very nature" is unnacceptable. I am sorry but I disagree. If someone is a pedophile by their very nature, then I will have to tell them that they can either never act on their urges, or else change. (Please, for the love of all that is good, do not tell me I am equating pedophilia with homosexuality) However, I think you were a bit tricky in your usage of the term "very nature", this is a very broad term and could be applied to a lot of things, and I do not believe that people must have their lives determined by some unalterable nature. Rather, I believe that we all have a sinful nature and that through the grace of God we can overcome anything and conform ourselves to the image of Christ. Here is the bottom line, if the anti-gay crowd said, "Gays are evil, THEY SHOULD DIE" And they said so in the name of Christ, then I would say they were gravely mistaken. First of all, gays are not evil, what they do is wrong, secondly to say a person should die for such a behavior is against the message of Christ. However if an "anti-gay" person says, "Homosexuality is a sinful behavior, and is against the purpose God has" Then there is nothing wrong with it.

  • Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    SheQuon,

    I can't believe, that after all of that explaining, you now made the crazy jump to say I am equating homosexuality with stealing too! I said they are DIFFERENT, the word different means not the same, equating means that you are calling two things the same. For that matter, I did say they were both wrong, but not in the same way. I do not consider a rapist and a thief the same. If this concept makes sense to you, then there should be no problem.

    Now, the criminal distinguishment between these concepts means nothing to me. Tomorrow, we could all say that rape is 100% A-OK and I would still say it is wrong.

    Also, I did not say that kids could be rotten without their parents help, but now that you mention it sure they can be (though the vast majority of the time it is directly the parents fault).

    You said,

    "I reject your claim that the anti-gay "Christians" opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with vicious acts like this. Kids hear and pick up on things quite easily. "

    Unfortunately for your argument, I did not say that or even imply it. Sure, maybe if I say, "Homosexuality is bad" some kid will think "Bad equals 'I MUST KILL'" But it would be stupid to say that I am the cause of that. I could say, "Rape is bad" and then some kid might think, "I must kill all rapists!!!!" But what I said did not cause that. Saying something is wrong, does not mean we have to kill people. You might find this surprising, I know, I was taken aback whenever I found out that teenagers weren't killing thieves and drunk people, it is really amazing that they could separate the two, but against all odds they did it. (sorry if the sarcasm was a bit heavy, it just comes out when you have to repeat yourself endlessly)

  • Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If homosexuals could have their way, they would make it a crime to speak out against homosexuality. Just stating a fact.

  • Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Gay rights activist would make it a crime to say homosexuality is a sin. Quit griping."

    Not a crime--just a sin. Unless you want to harass people with speech outside funerals, then yes, your keister should be hauled to the klink..
    I wasn't griping, I was stating a fact. (Sorry, I know facts are unpopular here.)

  • Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Gay rights activist would make it a crime to say homosexuality is a sin. Quit griping.
    Stealing is a sin. Murder is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. In God's eyes none is worse than another. Jesus died for ALL sins, and His blood can cover ALL sins. For God, it's as easy to forgive a murderer as it is to forgive a liar. I know that probably rubs you the wrong way. But that's why you're not God. If you were, we'd all be dead.
    What is hard, though, is for mankind to forgive murder. That's where the problem lies. Mankind shows it's self-centeredness by witholding forgiveness. But, by witholding forgiveness, doesn't affect the perpetrator. But it will eat away at the one who refuses to forgive.

  • Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The point is, Chris, you keep using rape, and now stealing, in your analogies. These things are crimes. But that should not surprise me since anti-gay "Christians" would make homosexuality a crime if they could. (In fact they were quite upset when it was decriminalized by the supreme court in 2003.) Then you wonder why people say you have blood on your hands when a KID decides this gay classmate doesn't deserve to live. Now we know kids can be rotten with no help from adults, but something tells me he didn't pull this idea out of the clear blue sky.

    I reject your claim that the anti-gay "Christians" opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with vicious acts like this. Kids hear and pick up on things quite easily. You can say you'd be "loving" your kid by telling him his very nature is "unacceptable," but you'd be wrong. And you're leaving the possiblity wide open for some kid who's been hearing "unacceptable" all his life to act out on another kid exhibiting "unacceptable" behavior.

  • Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Shequon,

    Great, I am supposing that you believe I was equating rape with homosexuality? Well, now everyone knows you don't know what you are talking about. Rape and homosexuality are not the same, just like rape and murder are not the same, just like rape and stealing are not the same, I never said they were the same, and you made the extreme leap to saying I did (or implied it), in a sarcastic way nonetheless. I do believe homosexuality is inherently wrong, but not the same way as rape, thank you for making me waste all of this space to explain the position that would be clear to anyone who was not consumed with an agenda...

    On to the actual subject,
    You then said:

    "So in other words, it's perfectly okay to make it socially unacceptable, and then wash your hands of any influence on a kid takes who decides to blow an "unacceptable" kid's head off, because you "love the sinner"."

    No in other words not that, if I told children that rape is wrong and it is a sin, and some stupid kid decided to go "blow the head off" of some rapist, then it is not my fault, it is because of some other problem that is deeply seated in that individual, which needs to be dealt with. I am consistent in my message that we are to oppose sin but love the sinner. You also seem to have a problem with this, I cannot fathom why, it seems incredibly cheap of you to say something like that. For instance, suppose there was a kid who decided to steal a candy bar, by your way of thinking I should tell that kid, "Look son, I hate you, I cannot just hate what you did, I hate you" or you would have me say, "Look son, I love you, and I love what you did, because I cannot dissassociate the two (because I am brain dead)" You completely eliminate the completely rational thing to do, which is tell the kid, "Look son, what you did was wrong and unnacceptable, I "hate" stealing, but I do not hate you, and I desire the right way for you" But for you, this is unnacceptable, we must hate people or love them and every thing about them.

    In short, you did not address what I posted, and you tried to refute a straw man with something that just doesn't make sense anyways.

  • Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No Chris I read your post and understood it, about how "making a wrong behavior socially acceptable is not the correct answer" Then you go on to make a rape analogy while stressing you're not equating homosexuality with rape (right). So in other words, it's perfectly okay to make it socially unacceptable, and then wash your hands of any influence on a kid takes who decides to blow an "unacceptable" kid's head off, because you "love the sinner". You're right about the anger, but I'm not the blind one.

  • Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    SheQuon,

    I think you need to reread what I wrote, I didn't say what you quoted, and that is not related to it either. Are you possibly just blinded by your anger? Anyways, when you address what I actually said I can consider what you are saying, but right now, you are just fighting against a straw man that you built. It really has nothing to do with me. Go, reread my post again, make sure that it says "Chris333" at the top, and make sure that it is the post addressed to you.

  • Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris, I simply didn't see your comment or I would have addressed it. And now that I've read it I see it's the same old "Oh, we would NEVER encourage anyone to do harm, we're just saying this is wrong and anyone who disagrees, well, they're sinners." That kid had a hate inside that told him that boy didn't deserve to live. You may not pull the trigger, but your words help these people justify in their minds that a little vengeance is okay. Same with those funeral picketers...You denounce their actions, yet you use their same rhetoric (maybe minus the f-word). It's not that much of a leap, and it's been made many times.

  • Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ifeelfine,

    I read it, it does not apply to everyone. I cannot say, "In the name of Jesus I am going to kill all the people with the first name Jack," or, "In the name of Jesus, I am going to molest children," or, "In the name of Jesus, I can be gay and a Christian" You cannot just say, I am a Christian and that makes me immune, you have to 'be' a Christian.

    Reread Matthew Chapter 7 verse 21

    SheQuon,

    Give me a break, I answered your post below, and you did not even comment on what I said. It just shows that you have no argument. I think you are having a lapse in logic...

  • Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well, shequon,
    We all know you were fishing for some sympathy for the gay rights agenda with your comment. I was just fishing for some sympathy for the Christian agenda. Unfortunately, neither of us will get what we want.
    I feel bad for both the teenager killed and her killer. That is such a tragedy that teenagers are killing each other. Is there an article on her killing? I would like to read about what happened.

  • Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow--Prophet just takes a statement about a kid killing another kid and dismisses it with a "Hey, Christians die too." That says it all, man.

  • Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    It is interesting that gay rights advocates, criticize removal of the book and reject claims that it is gay propoganda. The fact that they are criticizing speaks to nothing less than that of gay propoganda.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine,
    Never mind, I found it.
    What did David call Jonathan? Did he call him his lover? His partner? No, David called him "brother". That there explains their relationship.

  • Tom »
    Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    so ifeelf you are now throwing more mud at the wall trying to make it stick, It is transparent. There have been 3 studies just in the last 3 years that show one can change and that you are not "born that way" but of cousre you don't tke them literaly either because I think you would have to admit the errors of your ways. I wish I had the guts to throw out the parts of the Bible I didn't agree with but you see I can't, becasue all scripture is good for teaching and preaching and etc etc, not just the parts I want. I really feel sorry for you feelfine to be constantly in flux like that not knowing what to believe in because it might offend someone. For me it is easier to believe in the truth of what scripture says, it has not failed me yet. Gods blessing In Christ Tom

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I don't doubt your quoting of scripture, but where does it say that?

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - So you're saying your love for him was "greater" than that of any woman? The key word is "greater."

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tom - You certainly make a lot of leaps there - wow. I didn't say I thought the Bible wasn't true. I said its not literal (because its not). The Bible is true; it is the Word of God.

    As for being gay or streight and changing orientation, that doesn't happen. You certainly don't know much about human sexuality, do you? There are varying degrees of heterosexuality and varying degrees of homosexuality.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I had a very close friend once. He was more than a brother. I loved him deeply. Our relationship was stronger than any that a woman could offer. And we both had a girlfriend. What's that mean? Well, although I had a girlfriend, there was no way that she would ever come between us. No girl would ever be able to tell me that he and I could not be friends. I'm not, nor was I then, gay. Nor was there even an inkling of homosexuality in our relationship. When he died, it tore me apart. I'll never have a friend like that again.

  • Tom »
    Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So ifeel and sheq you both just amaze me. Look even if David was gay, and he wasn't by the way. but if he was then you have to admit that you can change your sexual orientation becasue that would be exactly what David did as he did get married and did have kids with out another mention of any relationship with another man. So which is it? The differance from us who claim the Bible as true and those who don't (ifeel and sheq) Is that those of us who do have a love so deep for the lost that we are compelled to tell the truth of the Scripture, not twist it to satisfy someones lustful desires. we do this so they will hear and understand the requirements of walking in His Holiness and rightousness. It is ultimately your choice to accept His word or not. To accept Jesus as Lord or not. To turn away from your sin or not. to suffer the consequences,,,,or not which is only thru Jesus. Sorry to break your heart. we will be praying for ya. In Christ Tom

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I speak the truth.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris - reread Matthew's fifth chapter.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - No, you speak opinion - not Truth. You know nothing about me and yet say I am not a Christian. That is not Truth - that is opinion - and a bad one at that.

    ". . . but I do not preach what I do not practice" - Right, your not gay, we get it.

    I'm sure I am hypocritical in areas of my life but the things I've said here is not one of those areas. I don't understand what you mean by me needing to remove the plank from my eye. I'm sure I have one but again, not in this area of my life.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    SheQuon,

    I don't know why that 14 year old killed the other homosexual person. It was not because of faith in Christ. Christ was completely against violence. In any case, making a wrong behavior socially acceptable is not the correct answer. We wouldn't say just because some angry kid killed a rapist that we should therefore make children's books that show rapists in a positive light. (NO I am not equating homosexuality with rape, if anyone says I am they will be wrong, and everyone who views this site will know you are wrong and not capable of making a sound judgment: I have to say this because angry people always try to make the claim)

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine,

    Here is the bottom line, the Bible never said David and Johnathon were gay, and even if they were (which they werent) they would have been guilty of sinning against God, and during the OT times deserving of death. You cannot side step this. It doesn't matter if they were gay, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong.

    You said, "I guess I should thank you since Jesus Himself said mine is the kingdom of heaven because of what you said!"

    Where did you get this idea, Jesus did not say, "The way to get to heaven is to be persecuted" He said it was based upon believing in Him and repenting of your sins. An unrepentant murderer could not say, "Oh since you "Christians" are condemning me I must be going to heaven now" It would be ridiculous.

    Furthermore, Paul says to expel the unrepentant brother/sister (From the Church) until they repent (see 1 Corinthians) Prophet was not doing anything wrong.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feelfine,
    I've been called worse. But I will still speak the Truth. If I let a man judge me, and control what I say and do, I would not be a son of God. The thing is, is that we both have planks in our eyes. I appear to be the only one concerned with taking mine out. You are most comfortable with yours. I am not sinless, but I do not preach what I do not practice.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet - You are such a hypocrite. Take the plank out of your eye already! You know nothing about me and yet you've accused me more than once of not being a Christian. I guess I should thank you since Jesus Himself said mine is the kingdom of heaven because of what you said!

    I've reread the context of Tom's statement and he made it sound like Jesus was talking specifically about David and Johnathan. Jesus clearly wasn't. He was talking in general. As for your strawman regarding David and Johnathon kissing - get a clue. The statement "their love for each other exceeded even that for a women" is what makes this relationship sound less then heterosexual. Stop throwing up strawmen.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    shequon,
    And yet, Christians die every week for their lifestyle, and no one even notices. So what are you complaining about?

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    This article was posted one week to the day (irony, anyone?) after a gay junior high student was shot dead in Oxnard CA. Maybe if his 14 year-old murderer had seen such a book he would have known being different was not such an abomination after all.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    muggle,
    Thanks for the link. I already had a DR Bible bookmarked on my computer for easy access. InGodITrust (who is a compatriot of TAJ) and I were having a discussion one day about a particular scripture and it's meaning. He made the comment that our Protestant Bible has distorted so much of the original scripture to fit our agenda, and that the Catholic Bible was the closest to the original transcript.
    I found a Catholic Bible online, looked for the particular scripture that we were debating, and lo and behold it said the same thing word for word as my KJV Protestant Bible. I pointed it out to him. He don't like me no more.

  • Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, If this thread hasn't already died out ... here's a link to the Douay-Rheims Bible, that TAJ should be comfortable with. (For you, TAJ if you happen to see this ...) Like many of the others that popped up from Googling +Douay +Rheims +Online, this one has a search engine for easy keyword reference:

    http://www.catholicfirst.com/bibledrv.cfm

    Nothing should be unavailable to the tech-savvy Christian.

    P.S. Anyone else reading this will find TONS of online bibles if you just Google them. Use keywords: +Bible, +VERSION, +online; where VERSION = {KJV | NKVJ | NIV | TNIV | NASV | NEB} or for Catholic, VERSION = {DRB | NAB | CRSV | JB}.

  • Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tom,
    No offense to TAJ, but a number of times we've asked him to look up scripture and he says he can't find his Bible. I'm not sure if that was true, since I'm not there, but if it is I find it rather odd. I hope he finds it, so he can truly search the scriptures.

  • Tom »
    Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Now ifeelfine I thought you knew the Scriptures, Thanks for telling him where it is Prophet, Here is another one for ya same place John 15:5-8 Jesus is talking--I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and i in him, he will bear much fruit, apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers, such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned, If you remain in me and my Words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Fathers glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." and it goes on. Do you understand these words? I wonder if you do. i''ll be praying for ya.
    In Christ
    Tom

  • Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:31 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    I suppose that if I wrote an autobiography about myself, and commented about a stressful event that happened and I cried and my father and I kissed each other, that years down the road someone like you would misconstrue that to mean I was a incestuous homosexual. Only a pervert, when they hear the word "kiss", automatically thinks it means on the lips and in a romantic, sexual way. God save us from the carnally minded.

  • Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    chicago,
    It's amazing how you can take "David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded." and turn it into a homosexual encounter. A kiss was common among close friends in that culture...and usually was on the cheek. Jesus himself was kissed by Judas. Does that mean they were gay?

    ifeelfine,
    You say you're a Christian, and yet you do not know one of the greatest scriptures spoken by Jesus? The more I listen to you, the more I'm convinced that you're really not a Christian. EIther that, or you haven't been a Christian long. Or you just don't bother reading the Bible, which would not make you a very good Christian.
    The scripture you're asking for is John 15:13.
    Check out Second Timothy 2:15 while you're at it.

  • Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Tom: Where did Jesus say that?

  • Tom »
    Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    ah chicago how innocent you are, did you not know that David married and had kids? Did you know that Jesus said that no greater love then this then one would die for their friend. They didn't have a homosexaulity relationship or have children together, but they would have died for each other. Man
    In Christ
    Tom

  • Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:51 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 4

    Perhaps the Bible should be pulled from Sunday school classes. After all, it depicts David and Jonathan having a love for each other that "surpasses the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26) and they fall on the ground, weep and kiss one another (1 Samuel 20:41)
    That's pretty controversial compared to a couple of penguins.

  • Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ...one of the "no"s below should be know...

  • Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey but did they write in the book that the zookeepers took the egg from another penguin couple?

  • Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I think this book does make mention to the two dads "hatching" an egg though, and that would give children the idea that two men can make an "egg" or "baby". Which is just not true.

  • Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Nowire,

    As we already established, most kids do not know what sex is at this point in their lives, and it is better we keep it that way. It is still hard for most kids to understand how two men or women have children, and we shouldn't give them a lie that two men or women can "have" children. Most kids do not even know that they are adopted, let alone other kids no it until later. And at least for the ones that are adopted we can explain that they do have a mom and dad.

  • Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    That's a lovely little paragraph, Chris, but nowhere in that book does it claim that the two penguins actually conceived Tango. There is no penguin sex in that book. Furthermore, most kids have at least one classmate who is adopted, and they don't freak out when they learn his/her parents didn't "have" him/her.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a