A Review of Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. By Robert Reilly.
Ignatius Press, 2014.
There are a number of good books on natural law theory, and many good books on homosexuality. In this volume Reilly nicely brings the two together. He makes the case for why the rationalisation of homosexuality is wrong, based not on religion or revelation, but on the very nature of things.
Natural law thought goes back at least to Plato and Aristotle. The classical philosophers taught that all things have a natural teleological end – that is, things “have inbuilt purposes”. The human body for example has built-in teleologically ordered ends.
He contrasts the Aristotelian version of things with that of Rousseau. The former says that man is a rational, political animal for whom the heterosexual family is the basic unit of society. The latter rejected all that, and even urged that the family be replaced by the state.
The former spoke about the cultivation of virtue, both public and private, as our highest end. By living according to our purpose or end, we achieve the highest good. And since the good of society was based upon the good of the family, anything which detracted from that was to be opposed. Thus the ancient Greeks did not endorse homosexuality as a way of life.
Sodomy was in fact condemned. Temporary pederastic love was tolerated, but only amongst the upper classes. Natural law forbad homosexuality, and something like homosexual marriage would never have even been considered. Socrates and Plato “were unambiguous in their condemnation of homosexual acts as unnatural.”
Since family is the core foundation of stable society, chastity is the indispensable political principle according to Aristotle. But Rousseau “turned Aristotle’s notion of Nature on its head”. He rejected the importance of the family, claimed that man is by nature good, and that society takes this from him.
Because the family is artificial in its origins, it can be changed at will. Instead of recognising the essential and in-built heterosexual nature of human beings, and the basic pillar of the virtuous society being the heterosexual family, Rousseau saw all this as a constraint and an impediment to human freedom.
And it is in this contrast of visions that the modern culture wars over homosexuality is now playing out. In the rest of the book Reilly looks at various ways in which this ideological and philosophical war is being manifest. Consider basic biology. Sex is ultimately procreative in nature, and men and women are different but complementary to realise this end.
Heterosexual intercourse is a perfect biological fit. Homosexual couplings are not. The human body is simply designed for the one, but not for the other. “If one insisted on using a highway exit as an entrance, one would be told that this is extremely hazardous to one’s health and safety and to that of others. Why is this so difficult to state when it comes to human anatomy?”
Homosexual acts are an obvious misuse of the body. Homosexuality is of course fully unnatural in that sense. It is not just an infertile relationship, but an impotent one. Going back to Aristotle’s distinction between essential and accidental properties, Reilly writes, “Homosexual relations are essentially sterile, intrinsically unfit for generation, while heterosexual relations are intrinsically generative and only accidentally infertile.”
And this is hugely important in the marriage debate. Marriage has always been about the regulation of human sexuality and the care of any children produced from such heterosexual unions. Nature knows of no procreative sodomy. “An infertile couple can still consummate a marriage; an impotent [homosexual] one cannot.”
Reilly looks at how the mindset of Rousseau has wreaked havoc in the institutions, be it science, law, education or the military. Consider how the militants simply bullied, intimidated and coerced the American Psychiatric Association to recognise homosexuality, and change its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).
It is a familiar story for those in the know, but most don’t know. It was not science but militancy that caused the APA to back down and change its policy. The activists simply disrupted meetings and employed fascist tactics to intimidate the APA into change.
Reilly quotes homosexual activists who admit to using storm trooper tactics as they sought to “create a truly fascist organization. We conspired to bring into existence an activist group that … could effectively exploit the media for its own ends, and that would work covertly and break the law with impunity.” Thus the APA back down was never a medical or scientific decision, but one based on fear and coercion.
He also challenges the phony claim that homosexuality is immutable. Not only is there no proof of a “gay gene” but countless individuals have changed course here. “Why is Gay Pride Day any less absurd than an Alcoholic Pride Day would be? Both conditions exist as aberrations, as abnormalities in the light of what is normal by Nature. To substitute an abnormality for normality destroys the distinction between the two and closes off the path to recovery.”
And we have even now gotten to the place where in some parts of the West, those who want help in leaving their unwanted same-sex attractions are effectively forbidden by law to receive such help, as in the 2012 California Senate Bill 1172.
Such laws will presumably not ban therapists from helping straight kids to become homosexual however. “The totalitarian impulse underlying the rationalization of homosexual behavior is here revealed in the attempt to forbid those seeking help from obtaining it.”
Even some pro-homosexual scientists were appalled at all this coercion and thuggery. As one said, “The APA has permitted political correctness to triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity. The public can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than from what it regards to be politically correct”.
As a result, “society as a whole is now being invited, or rather coerced, into the double life of the big lie – to pretend what is, is not: and what is not, is. There is something worse than disease; there is the denial of its existence . . . The worst thing, Socrates warned, is the lie in the soul about what is.”
Following on from the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosophers, Reilly closes his important volume this way: “Evil is particularly contagious when it is institutionalized. The institutionalization of immorality leads to more moral disorder, not to its attenuation, and then to political disorder and eventual collapse. There is a kind of Gresham’s law of morals: just as bad currency drives out good currency, so bad morals drive out good morals.”
I invite everyone to grab this book, read it carefully, and then pass it on to a friend. It is a much needed and thoroughly rational antidote to all the lunacy being spread in the debate about homosexuality. If you read just one book on this topic this year, make it this one.
11 Replies to “A Review of Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything. By Robert Reilly.”
Bill, here is part of the answer. That together with abortion. Only now, the switch is to curb the white race, rather than the black race.
Now I have a better understanding why these social experiments are pushed so hard in society.
We are over 7 billion, and carrying capacity is at 12 billion, and predicted that we will be at 10 billion in 40 years.
Thank you for sharing about this book. I’m sure I will be reading it in the future.
Here in Canada there is no longer a debate on the issue. If you are not on board with “gay pride” you have no voice. This is the first year that I’ve noticed that these “gay pride” events are promoted on TV, just like any other festival or event. They even had someone talking about how important it is to get kids to come down to the “pride” events (of course they want to get them early!). The militants have succeed in making this completely mainstream here and it literally makes me sick to my stomach.
It just shocks me how quickly they’ve been able to change things. When I was in high school (about 15 years ago), the homosexuality issue was still an election issue. Now, such a short time later, it is not only not an election issue but no one is even allowed to oppose it. If it comes out that a candidate supports traditional marriage and family relations, he is demonized in the media until forced to step down… and even if he does not step down, the masses are so brainwashed as to vote against the candidate because of his traditional stance.
Nothing less than a revival in Canada will save us from the downward spiral our country has taken.
Alan Keyes used a similar Aristotelian/Thomistic argument against gay ‘marriage’ in a debate with Obama—see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw"
About the fascist tactics of the sodomites, even the gay atheist Johann Hari wrote The strange, unexplored overlap between homosexuality and fascism, 24 June 2004:
I know you are a busy man, and I understand if you do not have the time to reply, however, I have been debating about same sex marriage online. I cited some studies and gave some links (including one of yours) that showed children do better with a mother and father to someone who supports same sex marriage. He completely wrote them off…
How would you respond? Thanks again for your time.
Thanks Brandon. Of course he wrote them off. No surprises there – that is what they do all the time. They simply dismiss the evidence, ignore the data, deny the facts, and live with their heads in the and. Facts and evidence mean absolutely nothing to these folks. In my book with over 700 endnotes I present a wealth of material making the case for children doing better with their own mother and father, and harmed in any other family structure. And that is just a tip of the iceberg. We have thousands upon thousands of such studies from all over the world on this. They simply dismiss it all because it does not fit their agenda.
The simple truth is, those who refuse to allow the evidence to speak (and I of course also quote heavily from homosexuals themselves, as well as those raised in homosexual households), are simply not worth wasting your time on. They are homosexual activists themselves or deeply involved in the cause. and they won’t let evidence get in their way. I have dealt with such folks for decades, and it is like debating a pile of rocks. They are not in the slightest interested in the data and the social science research, so of course it is pointless spending time with them.
Instead we need to concentrate our attention on the vast swathe of those in the middle who are open to truth and data, and may be won over with fact and evidence. Those are the ones we should seek to discuss matters with, not hardcore activists on the other side who of course do not give a rip about any evidence you might offer. The truth is, no evidence is ever going to sway them, because they are committed to an ideology, and a lifestyle, and not to truth.
Thanks Bill for your reply. I agree it is unbelievably frustrating to debate with people like this. They will say Christian apologist are biased in every way, call them unscientific, and say they can not be trusted, However, somehow the gay organizations have overcome their biases to present factual scientific information and they have the best research available despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The other thing that frustrates me is the fact that he keeps saying it is evil, and wrong to deny homosexuals their right to marry and that we are holding back progress. This is despite the fact that he is an atheist and has no way to legitimately say anything is ultimately evil or wrong. In his worldview there is no such thing as moral progress because their is no objective standard that he is trying to reach. It is only the shifting sands of what is popular at this time.
Thanks again for your reply. As a Christian brother I appreciate all you do for the case of truth. Your stance for truth despite the hatred you receive is inspiring. Keep up the good work.
Many thanks Brandon. You too.
Bill – I have received the book and am well into it. You don’t recommend these things in vain!
Great to hear David!
With how much the homosexual agenda has been basically pushed unto society, two questions.
First, what seems to be the motivation for why they are pushing it?
Secondly, what is their ultimate goal? If they have one at all.
Thanks John. To answer your questions in terms of the big picture, see here: