>>You aren’t seriously defending giving porn to underage kids, are you?
Because if not, you are dangerously close to appearing to do so.<<
Well, I’ve actually read the play. I’m married to a theater major and I read a lot of wretched plays but in exchange she reads a lot of physics books.
And I am saying this is a legitimate mega-award winning play about McCarthyism and AIDS and Mormonsim and several other serious topics that when studied by seniors with parental permission is not something that merits censorship.
The books contain graphic descriptions of sodomy heretofore only heard of in hardcore homosexual pornography. With numerous uses of the 'f' word and vulgar sexual references to Mother Teresa, the Mother of Jesus, and God.
That merits censorship. It's trash. There's no redeeming value in it. It should not be in a school where anyone under 18 can get their hands on it.
It would not be much different that baking a cake using the finest, unpreserved organic ingredients and adding rotten eggs. Would you eat a cake like that? The rest of the ingredients are great, the best. So what if the eggs are rotten? You can just ignore that part.
It corrupts the whole thing and porn corrupts the mind and moral character, even if the rest of the book has merit. If the book deals with issues that are so important, it can do it without being perverse. Adding porn just gives the writer a cheap thrill knowing that kids are reading this and that he's undermining the moral character of individuals.