A picture may be worth a thousand words but one word was worth a thousand signatures in the small town of West Bend, Wisconsin. The word? “Gay,” of course. Citizens in the town of 30,000 are up in arms about a local library’s inclusion of homosexual literature in the “Young Adult” section, referring to it as “sexually A community tries to ban Stephen Chbosky’s classicexplicit” and “inappropriate” for teen readers. What started as a dull roar of a few parents quickly became a thunderous cry of outrage from over 1,000 citizens who signed a petition requesting that books such as, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” which includes scenes of rape and sex, be put into the “Adult” section of the library.

Maybe they subscribe to the theory that being gay, much like H1N1, is a contagious virus from which their children, and our country, need protection.

Adding insult to injury, some citizens also requested the addition of ex-gay (reformed homosexuals who are now heterosexuals) authors that promote heterosexuality in order to be more “balanced”. As if this weren’t already egregious enough, one “outraged” citizen filed a claim against the library to have the book publicly burned. Really? Book burning? Upon reading this, I was of course sufficiently perturbed but as I continued to ponder on this debate, I began to wonder, just what the hell are these people so afraid of?

Are they afraid of sex? Sex is all over the place. It’s in Herbal Essences commercials with women all but pleasuring themselves while washing/conditioning their hair. It’s in Victoria’s Secret ads with scantily clad models salaciously displaying lingerie for viewers. It’s in Pussycat Dolls videos with six entertainers contorting their bodies over a horizontal titanium pole. It’s in Men’s Fitness magazine, highlighting bodacious buff bodies on its cover. It’s in children’s cartoons like “Sailor Moon” and “Teen Titans” which display either well endowed heroines meagerly covered and/or romantic relationships between animated characters. You can’t even have a reality television show anymore with there being some sex. In fact, some reality shows, such as “Daisy/Rock/Flavor of Love” and “The Real World” not only include but often highlight sex. And I would assume that most of the plaintiffs have had sex since they are, in fact, parents. But they aren’t going after any of the things mentioned…hmm, it must not be sex.

Perhaps people are afraid of controversial issues in literature. I mean, it’s not like schools include novels that tackle the oppression of African Americans like “The Souls of Black Folk” or “The Invisible Man”. I can’t imagine a curriculum comprised of books that address issues of sexism like “A Handmaid’s Tale” or “Persepolis 1 and 2”. And what kind of world would we live in if we allowed our country’s youth to read books that illustrate illicit drug use like “A Clockwork Orange” or “A Million Little Pieces”? Exposing students to these topics in literature wouldn’t at all be beneficial in helping them to learn about issues of social justice and equality, or educate them to be informed, productive members of society. Wait, high schools do use such literature in their curriculums? And people aren’t asking for these books to be burned? I guess it can’t be that either.

Maybe these people are just plain afraid of gay. Maybe they subscribe to the theory that being gay, much like H1N1, is a contagious virus from which their children, and our country, need protection. What people like this fail to understand is that this kind of mentality is one of bigotry, and teaching it to your children is passing down a bigoted legacy of ignorance, keeping the next generation’s minds as closed as the last. Far be it from me to attempt to be the law on nature vs. nurture but I’m fairly certain that people don’t become gay by talking to gay people, going to school with them, playing sports with them or by reading books about gay issues. (I’m also pretty sure that gay parents don’t “produce” gay children because my straight parents somehow produced me…but, I digress.)

The bottom line is that the idea that teenage youth shouldn’t be “exposed” to literature addressing gay issues is nothing more than a euphemism for homophobia. Adolescents are exposed to all sorts of vulgar, controversial and challenging ideas every day that nobody thinks twice about. I am not arguing that parents don’t have the right to censor what their children watch, read, say or do but they do not have the right to censor the media thousands of other youth have access to simply because they aren’t comfortable with it. Maybe instead of exhausting so much energy trying to shelter these children, they can take half of that energy and use it to educate them – a novel concept, really.