FCPS holds hearing on controversial book – Venue Has Changed

Fauquier County Public Schools have issued a news release announcing a public hearing on April 23, 2014 to hear opinions, and ultimately to rule on whether or not to remove the controversial book “Two Boys Kissing” from the Fauquier High School library.

The venue has changed since the original announcement; the place will now be the Fauquier High School “Falcon Room” located at 705 Waterloo Road, Warrenton, VA 20186.


David Levithan

The hearing will start at 1:30PM and public comments will be received by the hearing Committee from 3-4PM. In order to fully understand the issue you should plan to attend the entire hearing starting at 1:30PM.

The issue: Should “Two Boys Kissing” by David Levithan be withdrawn from the FHS library collection as requested by a parent.

Background: The FHS librarian recently purchased and displayed “Two Boys Kissing” for FHS library. The author, David Levithan, has written several books about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) life today.

Considerations: Our public schools are charged with educating our children so they can lead productive lives and be good citizens of Commonwealth of Virginia and United States of America. Should our schools be teaching different lifestyles and sexual orientation?

Does this book meet “community standards”?      [Editor: You can read an excerpt from the book and download it HERE. ]

In today’s highly charged society and age of political correctness those who oppose progressive ideas are immediately labeled intolerant, sexists, homophobes, bigots or worse. Those who seek to follow these progressive ideas ask for tolerance while they exhibit intolerance.

two_boys_kissing_coverOpposing “Two Boys Kissing” is not an act of censorship. It is asking the school to use appropriate material in the education of our 13 to 17 year old students. By presenting this book to students the school is actively or indirectly endorsing such behavior. This is not what are schools are supposed to do. In addition this book is not seen as meeting community standards by most of our community.

The book: It’s narrated by demons who have died of AIDS. It tells the story of two boys hoping to set a world’s record for the longest kiss. They used to be a couple. Another two boys, Peter and Neil, are a couple and their kisses are different from those boys attempting to set the record. Another two boys have just met and are figuring out what to do next. Cooper is the boy who seems to be just looking for sex and he feels alone. He is considering suicide.

This book has a strange view of love. The dead AIDS victims blame society for not finding a cure soon enough. The book says the world is full of people who think different is synonymous with wrong. The author hopes “There will come a time when the gospel will be rewritten.”

There is no reason for this book to be in FHS library.

It will be unless your voice is heard.

John Green                                                                                                                                                                  Bealeton





14 Responses to FCPS holds hearing on controversial book – Venue Has Changed

  1. Pingback: Can Two Boys Kissing hold up under FCPS Library Policy? | Fauquier Free Citizen

  2. Pingback: Facts about content of "Two Boys Kissing" - Hearing is Tomorrow | Fauquier Free Citizen

  3. Anton Afterwit Reply

    April 21, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    Mr. Ruibal,

    You seem to be frothing with rage that we will not accept the alternative lifestyle presented. Why does it upset you so that we have standards of what should be allowed in society and what should be taught to our children? You seem so upset that you cannot separate the discussion and points in this thread. If you want to advocate alternative lifestyles and sexual behavior, feel free to start a new thread by writing an article.

    If the book were about a boy and a girl kissing for 24 hours to get in the record book I would still have a problem with it being in our schools. It does not serve any legitimate educational value at that level. Besides, if it was about a boy and a girl kissing for 24 hours, nobody would even buy the book, let alone publish it.

    You are correct that we want children taught a certain way. We believe that the purpose of the public educational institutions are there to teach them how to be a contributing member of society. Beyond the basic information they get in health class on reproduction and sexual diseases, we do not desire them to get complete information on the plethora of other possibilities. They do not need to be taught about alternative sexual practices (beastiality, pedophilia, fecalphelia, sitophilia, retifism, ablutophilia, maiesiophilia, autoeroticism, transvestitism, etc.). They can get that information either at home, or after they become adults and attend college.

    You are incorrect in your statement that it was an obscure book in the library that no one would ever have even read if no issue was made. Please get your facts straight. The book was displayed by the Librarian.

    You can label us as bigots all day long, it does not change the facts. And you might want to lean what the word bigot means before bantering it about. Just because we have different standards and beliefs does not make us bigots. Just because we will not accept your viewpoint does not make us bigots. In fact, your emotional diatribe and intolerance of our viewpoint makes you more of a bigot than we are.

    • Dominic Ruibal Reply

      April 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm

      How am I the bigot? You are the one describing homosexuality as being equal to bestiality and pedophilia and trying to ban a book from public schools simply because it does not condemn the lifestyle. big·ot·ry



      noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries


      bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

      See, technically we would both be bigots under the basic broad definition of the word. But seeing as how I am only intolerant of you because you are being intolerant of something that is not even your business (peoples’ personal sexual orientation. sorry being gay is not equal to having sex with children or animals, nor is it a ‘preference” like being tied up, or being defecated on, which you also alluded to), and are trying to ban a book from reaching children simply because it does not conform to your personal ideas about love and sex, that makes you the bigot. I’m not a bigot just because I won’t tolerate your bigotry.

      • Anton Afterwit Reply

        April 26, 2014 at 12:47 am

        Mr. Ruibal,

        I believe you are reading things into my writing that are not there, thus displaying an emotional interjection which is in reality the defining trait between having an opposing view and being a bigot. I have expressed my views without emotion and have not resorted to labeling anyone with a name. Most important, and for the record, at no time did I ever call you or anyone else a heterophobe or anglophobe (see, I can add phobe to words too).

        While I have no emotion on the matter and have stated my opinion, you seem to be expressing strong emotions. I cannot help but look at your posts and imagine an Archie Bunker type character sneering and calling us a bunch of homophobes because we will not accept your premise that the behavior is normal or acceptable.

        You accuse me of alluding that being gay is the same as being attracted to children or animals for sexual gratification; or having preferred sexual practices. I did not state that, I simply stated that I did not think these alternative sexual practices should be taught in our schools.

        You accuse me of wanting to ban a book from reaching children simply because it does not conform to my personal ideas about love and sex. I do not see where I posted my philosophy on love and sex. For all you know I could be a gay male who is dying of AIDS. I think you are making assumptions based on my stated views that I have other views or live a certain lifestyle.

        It always amazes me with the attitudes of the liberal left (not saying you are one unless you want to claim that title). Smoking by children is bad, but allowing them access to adult material about sex is good. Drinking by children is bad, but engaging in carnal knowledge is good. Smoking cigarettes is bad, but smoking marijuana is good. Spending money on a sports center is bad, but spending money to take rights away from others is good.

        And again, the discussion has veered off-topic. If you want to discuss the merits or detriments of alternative lifestyles or alternative sexual practices, please submit an article to the editor and we would be happy to discuss it with you. But for the purposes of this thread, let us try to keep focused on the topic at hand. In case it is not clear to you, the topic is whether or not a book containing adult language and themes is appropriate to be provided to minors without parental consent.

        You are correct that I do not approve of the book being provided to children, but as stated, only in public schools without expressed permission of their parents. If they want to put this book in the public library in an adult reading room where minors must have permission of their parents to enter, then that is fine. Books of an adult nature do not belong in our schools where they can be freely accessed by children of any age. The magic difference is we are talking about children and not adults.

        • Dominic Ruibal Reply

          April 26, 2014 at 6:59 pm

          You are the one making the assumptions. not just about me and gay people, but apparently those who hold different political beliefs than you: “It always amazes me with the attitudes of the liberal left (not saying you are one unless you want to claim that title). Smoking by children is bad, but allowing them access to adult material about sex is good. Drinking by children is bad, but engaging in carnal knowledge is good. Smoking cigarettes is bad, but smoking marijuana is good. Spending money on a sports center is bad, but spending money to take rights away from others is good.” as if that sums up the views of anyone to the left of you. Either way the book does not seem to be glorifying any kind of sexual behavior, but rather simply portraying those people as actual human beings. It is not a pornographic novel, and to describe as such is factually inaccurate. Your opposition is based in the fact that these people are gay, which is not a damn fetish or preference, and not because of the overt sexual nature of the book because any portrayal of homosexuals is not by default overtly sexual in nature.

          • Anton Afterwit Reply

            April 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm

            Mr. Ruibal – Instead of copying whole portions of my posts, please try posting original thought. And yes, the whole part of my post you reposted does highlight some of the hypocrisy I perceive in the liberal left.

            Now let us focus attention on your original content. Again, I perceive rage and anger that we will not accept your arguments. Probably because you use foul language which is a usual indicator of poor education combined with anger. Which of course indicates you are not examining the subject objectively but rather fully emotionally dismissing any logic. Which of course goes right back to the real definition of bigotry.

            You really need to get out more and read more. This same subject (while late) is also being discussed on fauquiernow. But alas, you keep getting away from the subject of parental rights and responsibilities of minors and want to talk about homosexual behavior. So we will digress for just a moment.

            I find it odd that you state, “the book does not seem to be glorifying any kind of sexual behavior …” and continue with “It is not a pornographic novel …”. Odd, just 6 days ago you state you have not read the book. If you have not read the book then how can you draw a conclusion on what the book contains or not? Repeating liberal talking points does not enlighten you. Maybe you should actually read the book with a logical eye and you will see why parents might object to the content therein.

            You emphatically state, “Your opposition is based in the fact that these people are gay, which is not a damn fetish or preference”. I beg to differ with you but this is not a birth defect, skin color, or some other disorder that an individual has no choice over. When it comes to a sexual partner, whether it is same sex, opposite sex, animal or vegetable, you do have a choice. There are many in society who control their sexual desires (Nuns, Priests, Monks, etc.) and many that do not (rapists, prostitutes, etc.). So yes, the choice of life partner is a preference, not something that is decided by chance or birth.

            As I have previously advised, if you would like to debate the merits or detriments of alternative lifestyles or sexual choices, start a new thread. Otherwise, let us stick to the topic at hand of parental rights/responsibility.

  4. Pingback: More to "Two Boys Kissing" than Amazon review indicates | Fauquier Free Citizen

  5. Anton Afterwit Reply

    April 20, 2014 at 7:42 am

    Our curriculum (and support material provided by the School Library) needs to focus on students taking personal responsibility for their own success and being taught to stand on their own two feet. They need to be taught MORALS and the basic principle that they are responsible for making their own choices and how the wrong choices have consequences. They need to be taught that their actions effect society and how they need to contribute to advance society. The High School Library is supposed to supplement this philosophy with material that aligns with that thought process.

    This book only serves to advance the agenda of “ME” and foster the attitude that whatever you do is OK and society is responsible for fixing the damage caused by poor choices. I remember being taught in High School a course on Health. In that course we learned that there are sexually transmitted diseases that result in death and social stigma. I remember being taught that if I got one of those diseases that it was something I was responsible for and I would suffer the consequences for the rest of my life. If I got a girl pregnant then I would be responsible for raising the child as well as providing for the child and mother. I was taught that if I did drugs it was a bad thing and I would suffer the consequences.

    This book underscores the myth that society is responsible for what I do. If I get AIDS, it is not my fault for exercising bad judgment; it is the fault of society for not taking care of me and finding a cure. And if I do drugs, then it is the responsibility of society to feed me, clothe me, and ensure I live as long as possible to enjoy my drugs. This book tries to take away the shame in doing the wrong things. It underscores the thought that doing what society thinks is wrong is their problem and I do not have to fit in. It highlights the expectation that no matter what I do, it is the responsibility of society to accept me and ignore the behavior they find objectionable.

    While I do not think we should have censorship and ban books like this from the public library (appropriately placed in the adult section), I do not think we need this kind of material in the High Schools. The purpose of our public educational institutions is to prepare our children to be contributing members of society instead of being objectionable and a burden. I challenge the administration to re-examine their role and to ensure the material in the public school libraries underscores the philosophy of participatory entry into society rather than living an alternative lifestyle that does not contribute and only serves to fracture society.

    This book praising alternative choices and lifestyles without accountability needs to be removed from the High School library and the Librarian needs to be reminded that her job is to maintain the books we have, not look for ways to socially engineer our children into alternative and socially unacceptable lifestyles and choices.

    • Dominic Ruibal Reply

      April 21, 2014 at 7:35 am

      Why don’t the people opposed to this book just come out and say what they really feel? You don’t think homosexuality is acceptable, and to even be exposed to a viewpoint that does not reinforce that, even if it is not required reading, is “indoctrination”. You think that people with AIDS need to be held accountable? I’m pretty sure they are dealing with the consequences of their “bad judgment” as you put it. Why stand behind such paraphrasing? Gay people with AIDS deserve it is what you just said lets just keep your feelings in perspective here without hiding your bigotry and ignorance behind such clever wordplay.

      • Anton Afterwit Reply

        April 21, 2014 at 9:03 am

        Wow, it did not take long for someone to come out screaming “Homophobe”. Adding the suffix “phobe” to a word does not then make the behavior acceptable. Good try.

        There are two parts of the topic at hand. The subject itself and the appropriateness of presenting that information to public school students.

        The subject itself is one that is embraced by a SMALL MINORITY of individuals. The statistics are very hard to obtain because of the nature of the societal acceptance of any of the behavior. The best estimates indicate that on a global scale, homosexual activity is less than 2%. The same percentages are cited for just about every other alternative sexual preference (beastiality, pedophilia, fecalphelia, sitophilia, retifism, ablutophilia, maiesiophilia, autoeroticism, transvestitism, etc.). If the book were about any of these other sexual preferences, I am sure the outcry would have been a lot higher. You will always find a small minority that embraces the activity, and a little bit higher minority that approve of the behavior. The subject of the actual alternative sexual behavior is not germane to the discussion.

        The discussion is the appropriateness of presenting information on alternative lifestyles and alternative sexual behaviors as part of a curriculum or material made available in the public schools. Using your logic then, the Librarian should feel free to order “The Kama Sutra”, “Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality”, “The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior”, and a variety of other material that relates to sexual activity. The objection is that the Librarian should not be ordering material that has sexual behavior as the core material, regardless of whether it is for or against that sexual behavior.

        Mr. Ruibal, you failed to comprehend the point of the AIDS impact addressed in the book. The issue is not about the individuals suffering from AIDS, but their position that it is the responsibility of society to cure them of the results of their behavior. This is akin to adulterers decrying the fact that society should pay for their divorce, or for the treatment of any communicable disease they might get. If you happen to get a disease because of your activity (sexual or otherwise), it is not the responsibility of society to take care of you.

        And please do not try to label those who oppose alternative sexual behavior as hoping anyone with AIDS will die. Those who have obtained disease or poor health as a result of their choices in life (drug addict, smoker, alternative sexual practice, etc.), will have to deal with the consequences. But those who have been stricken with a disease through no fault of their own (i.e., blood transfusion or unintended exposure to biologicals), should certainly be supported by society. In plain English for you, if you know the behavior you want to engage in presents a risk to your health and you do it anyway, then you alone are responsible for the consequences.

        Let us keep this conversation on track. The objection is the Librarian ordered (and promoted) a book that glorifies alternative sexual behaviors and reinforces a philosophy of societal liability for a failure of personal responsibility.

    • Dominic Ruibal Reply

      April 21, 2014 at 5:25 pm

      How is society finding a cure for someone with AIDS from a transfusion any different from finding a cure for someone who contracted from sexual activity? They are the same disease. Should we not pursue treatments for lung cancer because some people got it from smoking instead of genetics or pollution? You can try to spin this any way you want, but the book is not a how to guide to gay sex, nor is it required reading, so to call it indoctrination is stupid. Everything you guys are saying is bologna. If the book were about a boy and a girl kissing for 24 hours to get in the record books none of you would have a problem with it. Showing that people who have different ways of making love and people who have contracted deadly diseases are still human beings is not “glorification of alternative sexual behaviors”. Nor can homosexuality be equated smoking or poor exercise habits. I’m sure if there were a book about fat people that complained that society had not found better ways to treat diabetes none of you would have anything to say. Your opposition is entirely based in the fact that you have a problem with gay people, and that you do not want the schools to say that it is acceptable, even in an obscure book in the library that no one would have ever even read had you not made such a big stink about it. You are the ones who want to indoctrinate children to fit your preferences, not the other way around. Don’t try to hide your bigotry behind such hollow points. You are not fooling anybody.

      • rickbuchanan Reply

        April 22, 2014 at 8:08 am

        Have you read the book? It is pure porn, describing intimate sexual behavior in
        the most graphic and erotic manner. Whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, it has no place in the high school library. Last I looked social morals are no where to be found in any good school curriculum. Yet, if sexual activity involves an alternative lifestyle, in your opinion, it should be included. Really? Why?

        • Dominic Ruibal Reply

          April 23, 2014 at 6:42 pm

          No I have not read the book. But if the excerpt above is as graphic as it gets (sorry I assumed I was supposed to be offended by something in there) I would not call the book “pure porn”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *