New ‘Children’s’ Book Has Prince Charming Finding True Love With Farm Boy

New ‘Children’s’ Book Has Prince Charming Finding True Love With Fa...

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 go on to form same-sex relationships. So, if there is nothing wrong with such relationships, why not show kids stories about men in love?

This was the implicit reasoning used by authors Adam Reynolds and Chaz Harris who wrote Promised Land. This is 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. And two men certainly cannot start a family. That is biologically impossible. These are not only theological truths. They are 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 one indulges it, 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 based on some bad effects of doing so. “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 Promised Land in schools, but we could not teach about the Promised Land!

“And God almighty bless thee, and make thee to increase, and multiply thee: that thou mayst be a multitude of people. And give the blessings of Abraham to thee, and to thy seed after thee: that thou mayst possess the land of thy sojournment, which he promised to thy grandfather” (Genesis 28:3-4).

What an inversion.

The press is in love with Promised Land. Huffington Post says the book is about a place “where all people are equal no matter what they look like or who they love.” It’s obvious the author of that sentence has not thought through all its implications. Should men who love children be celebrated? Doesn’t Equality demand such a thing?

Harris told Huffington Post a truth: “The [kinds of media] we consume as kids and young adults form our attitudes towards those around us. … Most importantly, they influence our attitudes towards ourselves. … If we can be heroes in stories, we’re seen more positively in the real world.”

That homosexual relationships will be seen in a more positive light is just the effect Promised Land will have.

Teen Vogue calls Promised Land “required reading” and that says that the book “smashes any taboo around the subject” of homosexual relationships. It does, too.

The book has already set off a debate in New Zealand (home of the authors). Women’s Weekly asks, “Should children be taught about homosexuality in school?” The question was, as you might guess, mostly rhetorical.

What this book is doing is no different than what Disney did in Beauty and the Beast. That’s the new movie to made a point to show “an exclusively gay moment.” And they did it in a charming way. Kids who saw the movie would, as calculated, look with a kinder eye on homosexual relationships.

As they should, if there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships.

Update: Santa Claus to be “Gay” Too

Just in is news that another picture-book will feature Santa Claus in a homosexual relationship with a black man. Time reports the book will be titled Santa’s Husband and will go on sale on 10 October. (For more from the author of “ ‘Children’s’ Book Has Prince Charming Finding True Love With Farm Boy” please click HERE)

Views: 18


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Al Goodwyn


Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service