Here is a short argument to keep in mind as you read about a new “children’s” book that promotes homosexual relationships:
If there is nothing morally wrong with same-sex relationships, then there is nothing wrong with exposing children to same-sex relationships.
After all, kids will see same-sex relationships around them in our culture, and some kids will themselves go on to form same-sex relationships, so why not, if there is nothing wrong with such relationships, show kids stories about men in love?
This was the implicit reasoning used by authors Adam Reynolds and Chaz Harris who wrote Promised Land, a picture-book about how “a young Prince and a farm boy meet in the forest and their newfound friendship blossoms into love.”
The Prince’s mother is divorced and has taken up living with an evil man. The evil man covets Farm Boy’s land. The land sits, as expected, in an Enchanted forest.
The book ends with a lovely picture of the Prince and Farm Boy smacking each other on the lips over the words “They got married and started their own family.”
That is, of course, impossible. Two men cannot marry, a metaphysical impossibility, and two men certainly cannot start a family, a biological impossibility. These are not only theological truths, but scientific realities as well.
Well, nobody expects Reality in a children’s fantasy. Magic isn’t real either, but that didn’t slow sales of or enthusiasm for Harry Potter. We shouldn’t therefore be critical of fantastical elements. But can we say anything against positive portrayals of homosexual love?
We cannot. Not if we cannot also say, out loud and in public, that homosexual love is immoral. Now love between two men, or two males, need not be immoral. A father loves his son. A man loves his friend. But if homosexual love is different than the love of two friends, what is that difference? It is sexual desire. Yet that desire is objectively disordered. The desire if indulged in often leads to homosexual acts, which are immoral and sinful.
But if we cannot say that, then we cannot say that Promised Land should not be shown to children. And we cannot say that it should not be shown to children in schools. The only argument we can muster against it would be depressingly utilitarian. “We cannot show the book,” the utilitarian might argue, “Because we do not want to pay for it.” What happens when a generous soul then donates copies?
We have reached a point in our culture where we could teach in schools Promised Land, but we could not teach about the promised land! […]
Click here to read the rest. But not if any children are present.