What do you think?
Rate this book
Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything
Why are Americans being forced to consider homosexual acts as morally acceptable? Why has the US Supreme Court accepted the validity of same-sex marriage, which, until a decade ago, was unheard of in the history of Western or any other civilization? Where has the gay rights movement come from, and how has it so easily conquered America? The answers are in the dynamics of the rationalization of sexual misbehavior. The power of rationalization - the means by which one mentally transforms wrong into right - drives the gay rights movement, gives it its revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest because the security of its rationalization requires universal acceptance. In other words, we all must say that the bad is good. At stake in the rationalization of homosexual behavior is the notion that human beings are ordered to a purpose that is given by their Nature. The understanding that things have an in-built purpose is being replaced by the idea that everything is subject to man's will and power, which is considered to be without limits. This is what the debate over homosexuality is really about - the Nature of reality itself. The outcome of this dispute will have consequences that reach far beyond the issue at hand. Already America's major institutions have been transformed-its courts, its schools, its military, its civic institutions, and even its diplomacy. The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic.
250 pages, Hardcover
First published April 15, 2014
55 people are currently reading
592 people want to read
About the author
Robert R. Reilly
17 books37 followersRobert R. Reilly is a writer and senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council (since 2008). He has published on topics of US foreign policy and "war of ideas".
During 1968 to 1970, he served as tank platoon leader (1st Lieutenant) in the 1/18th Armored Cavalry at Fort Lewis, Washington. He worked in the private sector 1977 to 1981, and for The Heritage Foundation (1981, 1989) the U.S. Information Agency (1981–1983) and as Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan during the latter's first term (1983–1985). He was Senior Advisor for Public Diplomacy at the US Embassy in Berne, Switzerland (1985–1988). He produced and hosted a weekly talk-show on foreign policy, On the Line, for Voice of America & Worldnet TV (1990–2001) and was director of Voice of America (2001–2002).
He acted as Senior Advisor for Information Strategy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during 2002 to 2006 and as Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Information Ministry during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. In 2007 he was Assistant Professor of Strategic Communications, School for National Security Executive Education, National Defense University.
Reilly in 2010 published The Closing of the Muslim Mind, published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. In the book, he draws a connection between the decline of the "rational" theological school of Mu'tazila in favour of the rise of Ash'arism, which would become the mainstream Sunni theology, in the 10th century. In this the author sees an act of "intellectual suicide", the nucleus of the end of the Islamic Golden Age and the decline of Islamic civilization into a "dysfunctional culture based on a deformed theology" locked in determinism, occasionalism and ultimately fatalism.
In his review of the book, Frank Griffith describes it as "war literature", and "a Catholic refutation of Ash'arite Muslim theology", complaining that Reilly constructs an undue equation between Ash'arism and contemporary Jihadism, while most Jihadists in fact follow Salafism and are hostile towards Ash'arism.
During 1968 to 1970, he served as tank platoon leader (1st Lieutenant) in the 1/18th Armored Cavalry at Fort Lewis, Washington. He worked in the private sector 1977 to 1981, and for The Heritage Foundation (1981, 1989) the U.S. Information Agency (1981–1983) and as Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan during the latter's first term (1983–1985). He was Senior Advisor for Public Diplomacy at the US Embassy in Berne, Switzerland (1985–1988). He produced and hosted a weekly talk-show on foreign policy, On the Line, for Voice of America & Worldnet TV (1990–2001) and was director of Voice of America (2001–2002).
He acted as Senior Advisor for Information Strategy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during 2002 to 2006 and as Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Information Ministry during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. In 2007 he was Assistant Professor of Strategic Communications, School for National Security Executive Education, National Defense University.
Reilly in 2010 published The Closing of the Muslim Mind, published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. In the book, he draws a connection between the decline of the "rational" theological school of Mu'tazila in favour of the rise of Ash'arism, which would become the mainstream Sunni theology, in the 10th century. In this the author sees an act of "intellectual suicide", the nucleus of the end of the Islamic Golden Age and the decline of Islamic civilization into a "dysfunctional culture based on a deformed theology" locked in determinism, occasionalism and ultimately fatalism.
In his review of the book, Frank Griffith describes it as "war literature", and "a Catholic refutation of Ash'arite Muslim theology", complaining that Reilly constructs an undue equation between Ash'arism and contemporary Jihadism, while most Jihadists in fact follow Salafism and are hostile towards Ash'arism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews
February 5, 2017
I would like to say if you haven't got anything nice to say, then zip it, but since one of my favourite quotes is Alice Roosevelt Longworth's “If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody come sit next to me” , that would be a bit hypocritical. This review really hasn't got anything nice to say.
This is an extract from a five star review that made me think that maybe we should make critical thinking classes compulsory in schools:
My attitude towards gays is it is definitely better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all as they say, regardless of who. I couldn't care less who anyone has sex with, what difference is it going to make to me unless they are a potential lover? I do care that gays can get married because of the civil rights, inheritance laws and even visiting in hospital. Everyone should have the ability to give these rights to the person or people of their choice, lovers or friends, and if marriage is the only way they get recognised then there you go.
All holy books are about power, and especially power over women and what they have to say about homosexuality is just about on the same level. Control.
And as far as divinely-inspired goes, why did a god create groups of people he hates and groups of people who have to hate each other, all of whom say they know exactly who god likes (them) and who god wants to wipe off the face of the earth in as nasty a way as possible? I mean if this was true god could do it at a single blow right although that is a circular argument since why did he create them in the first place?
Say it's satan's influence? You can't give some other supernatural being that kind of power over people if you call yourself a monotheist. So you say it's unnatural. What's unnatural about it? Plenty of animals have the same-sex thing. That's just the way it goes, there's still more than enough of us all around to reproduce.
Maybe it's in the genes, maybe it's a choice for some people. What does it matter? Why is it so important that how someone defines themselves sexually we have to have opinions and legislation about it?
How did I find this book? Someone didn't like my review of Infidel and not being a friend they couldn't comment so they sent me a message with the friend request, only it wasn't friendly if you see what I mean. I looked at their profile and saw this book five-starred.
Rewritten Jan 23, 2016.
This is an extract from a five star review that made me think that maybe we should make critical thinking classes compulsory in schools:
"*Having same sex attraction isn't a choice, i was born that way, thus, gay sex is right.
* Having animal attraction isn't a choice, i was born that way, thus, human-animal sex is right.
* Having child attraction isn't a choice, i was born that way, thus, pedophilia and child molesting is right.
*Having an attraction to beautiful women isn't a choice, i was born that way, thus, i can have sex and rape my neighbors wife, and it's right because I didn't have a choice(i didn't have a choice, because i was attracted to her).
***That's right folks! Acting on same sex attractions makes perfect sense, and is good true and noble"
My attitude towards gays is it is definitely better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all as they say, regardless of who. I couldn't care less who anyone has sex with, what difference is it going to make to me unless they are a potential lover? I do care that gays can get married because of the civil rights, inheritance laws and even visiting in hospital. Everyone should have the ability to give these rights to the person or people of their choice, lovers or friends, and if marriage is the only way they get recognised then there you go.
All holy books are about power, and especially power over women and what they have to say about homosexuality is just about on the same level. Control.
And as far as divinely-inspired goes, why did a god create groups of people he hates and groups of people who have to hate each other, all of whom say they know exactly who god likes (them) and who god wants to wipe off the face of the earth in as nasty a way as possible? I mean if this was true god could do it at a single blow right although that is a circular argument since why did he create them in the first place?
Say it's satan's influence? You can't give some other supernatural being that kind of power over people if you call yourself a monotheist. So you say it's unnatural. What's unnatural about it? Plenty of animals have the same-sex thing. That's just the way it goes, there's still more than enough of us all around to reproduce.
Maybe it's in the genes, maybe it's a choice for some people. What does it matter? Why is it so important that how someone defines themselves sexually we have to have opinions and legislation about it?
How did I find this book? Someone didn't like my review of Infidel and not being a friend they couldn't comment so they sent me a message with the friend request, only it wasn't friendly if you see what I mean. I looked at their profile and saw this book five-starred.
Rewritten Jan 23, 2016.
June 23, 2014
what did i think?
this:
this:
April 3, 2014
Bigotry Veiled in a Facade of False Compassion
Robert Reilly writes for MercatorNet, a right-wing, conservative, pro-life, anti-marriage equality, anti-compassion (as demonstrated by the website's stance on assisted suicide) nexus.
In this book, based more or less on his articles on the aforementioned site, he equates homosexual behaviour with pedophilia, bestiality and incest. Apparently, the notion of informed consent is foreign to him. A naturalist through-and-through, Reilly opposes homosexual behaviour and marriage equality based on the idea that it is "unnatural." To do this, he must ignore, rationalise away and condemn the homosexual behaviour found among over 1000 animal species as "inherently immoral." Which he attempts to do by painting all such behaviour as harmful and therefore evil. To make matters worse, he ignores one simple fact: every heterosexual couple can engage in every sexual act that a same-sex couple can, simply with a member of the opposite sex. Even if he is aware but simply unconcerned about this, he still displays a breathtaking level of cognitive dissonance. Sodomy laws (repealed by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas) also criminalised oral sex between heterosexual couples, although this aspect of the laws were almost never enforced.
Also, unless a lesbian is raped, same-sex couples are guaranteed NOT to have elective or "convenience" abortions. This is something everyone can support, and marriage equality will encourage monogamy, which will in turn reduce the spread of STDs. Given the title of the book, Reilly seems unconcerned with homosexuality itself, so long as the individual remains repressed, miserable and celibate. So much for compassionate conservatism.
Another argument against marriage equality he presents entails the definition of marriage. He conveniently forgets that the biblical definition (at least in the OT) included polygamy, a woman and her rapist, a man and MANY women with concubines thrown in for good matter (King Solomon). With such blatant hypocrisy and callous treatment of his opponents, one might well wonder who he really cares about.
According to Reilly himself, the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Well, love makes a family, not a man and a woman. No-fault divorce has been immensely beneficial from a harm-reduction perspective. Lesbian couples have proven themselves better parents than the average "traditional" couple, and Diane Downs proves that simply becoming a biological parent does not prevent one from committing mass child murder. Why Reilly would prevent loving same-sex couples (who must pass the same qualification tests and hurdles than heterosexual couples must) from adopting children and have them languish in orphanages or passed around the foster care system is beyond me. It would seem that he has not thought through the implications of his worldview.
Source: Divorce, No-Fault Style, New York Times
Robert Reilly writes for MercatorNet, a right-wing, conservative, pro-life, anti-marriage equality, anti-compassion (as demonstrated by the website's stance on assisted suicide) nexus.
In this book, based more or less on his articles on the aforementioned site, he equates homosexual behaviour with pedophilia, bestiality and incest. Apparently, the notion of informed consent is foreign to him. A naturalist through-and-through, Reilly opposes homosexual behaviour and marriage equality based on the idea that it is "unnatural." To do this, he must ignore, rationalise away and condemn the homosexual behaviour found among over 1000 animal species as "inherently immoral." Which he attempts to do by painting all such behaviour as harmful and therefore evil. To make matters worse, he ignores one simple fact: every heterosexual couple can engage in every sexual act that a same-sex couple can, simply with a member of the opposite sex. Even if he is aware but simply unconcerned about this, he still displays a breathtaking level of cognitive dissonance. Sodomy laws (repealed by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas) also criminalised oral sex between heterosexual couples, although this aspect of the laws were almost never enforced.
Also, unless a lesbian is raped, same-sex couples are guaranteed NOT to have elective or "convenience" abortions. This is something everyone can support, and marriage equality will encourage monogamy, which will in turn reduce the spread of STDs. Given the title of the book, Reilly seems unconcerned with homosexuality itself, so long as the individual remains repressed, miserable and celibate. So much for compassionate conservatism.
Another argument against marriage equality he presents entails the definition of marriage. He conveniently forgets that the biblical definition (at least in the OT) included polygamy, a woman and her rapist, a man and MANY women with concubines thrown in for good matter (King Solomon). With such blatant hypocrisy and callous treatment of his opponents, one might well wonder who he really cares about.
According to Reilly himself, the purpose of marriage is to raise children. Well, love makes a family, not a man and a woman. No-fault divorce has been immensely beneficial from a harm-reduction perspective. Lesbian couples have proven themselves better parents than the average "traditional" couple, and Diane Downs proves that simply becoming a biological parent does not prevent one from committing mass child murder. Why Reilly would prevent loving same-sex couples (who must pass the same qualification tests and hurdles than heterosexual couples must) from adopting children and have them languish in orphanages or passed around the foster care system is beyond me. It would seem that he has not thought through the implications of his worldview.
Source: Divorce, No-Fault Style, New York Times
nope-not-interested
May 7, 2014WTF is this shit?! I'm offended just by the blurb.
will-stress-me-out
June 11, 2014Oh, goddess's tits. Get over the fact that gay people exist! There's gay swans, gay penguins. Gay elephants! Homosexuality is not the worse thing in the world. Children are being abused, starved and tortured. Why not write about the impact that has on society? Only thing that happens when people accept gay people instead of tormenting them is that less gay people end up committing suicide or getting killed for being different!
Also, historically there have been groups of people who have accepted gays. Don't look at Romans and Greeks in the past though. Their concept of sexuality was WAY different than ours is.
Also, historically there have been groups of people who have accepted gays. Don't look at Romans and Greeks in the past though. Their concept of sexuality was WAY different than ours is.
May 20, 2014
This is a superb book, given the premises. Published by Ignatius, this book by Robert Reilly provides a wealth of information on the current "full court press" that the homosexual activists are running. I would have preferred more Scripture, and less Aristotle, but Reilly does a great job in showing that reality really isn't optional. The book really lives up to the subtitle -- "How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything." For those involved in the culture wars -- and this issue is at the very center of those wars -- this book is a must read.
July 8, 2014
This book is full out laugh-out-loud lines. It would be hysterically funny, if Reilly's blatant homophobia weren't so obvious.
Here's just a couple examples of his gutbusters --
1. "Legally, a class can be determined only by accident of birth, by such traits as race or sex."
ROFL!! Reilly has completely forgotten about religion -- which is a choice. Thousands (millions?) of people choose to convert every year. According to Reilly's claim, we should remove all protections from religion.
Sound good to you?? ;-D
2. "Likewise, even if homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, what distinguishes homosexuals is their sexual activity."
Ummm, NO. What distinguishes homosexuals is their ATTRACTION -- their ORIENTATION -- not their activity. Celibate or virgin homosexuals are still homosexual, just as celibate or virgin heterosexuals are still heterosexual. Or does Reilly truly believe that a celibate heterosexual somehow becomes gay?? ;-D
This book is sadly hilarious. It's tragic that so many people will swallow this claptrap whole.
And here are the original rebuttals I made to Reilly's ludicrous book blurb -- these alone will give you a good idea of how ridiculous the rest of the book is --
1. "Why are Americans being forced to consider homosexual acts as morally acceptable?"
Nobody is forcing anyone to consider ANY acts as morally acceptable. Many people don't consider gambling, or drinking alcohol, or divorce to be morally acceptable -- yet all are legal. "Legal" does not necessarily mean "moral" -- "legal" only means "keep your nose out of their business, because it isn't hurting you."
2. "Why has the US Supreme Court accepted the validity of same-sex marriage, which, until a decade ago, was unheard of in the history of Western or any other civilization?"
Actually, the history of same-sex marriages goes back for literally thousands of years. At least two Roman EMPERORS were married to men. In fact, Rome didn't fall until a couple of hundred years AFTER same-sex marriage was made illegal in the Roman Empire.
And multiple other ancient civilizations practiced same-sex marriage as well. As far back as the Assyrians we find ancient religious texts containing blessings for same-sex unions. Heck, in ancient Hindu scriptures even some of their own GODS were born from same-sex unions. Get your facts straight.
3. "The power of rationalization - the means by which one mentally transforms wrong into right - drives the gay rights movement"
Oh puhleez. As multiple federal judges have already acknowledged, the ACTUAL impetus behind the gay rights movement is the drive to recognize EQUALITY -- you know, as embodied by that pesky little US Constitution and its annoying little Equal Protection clause.
4. "In other words, we all must say that the bad is good."
You don't have to say anything. You only have to keep your nose out of other peoples' business. That should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?
5. "At stake in the rationalization of homosexual behavior is the notion that human beings are ordered to a purpose that is given by their Nature."
Many, many species of animals out in nature practice same-sex behaviors and form same-sex unions. Heck, 1/4 of ALL black swan pairings are same-sex -- and in bonobo chimps, more than half of ALL sexual behavior is same-sex. And of course there are many other similar examples. Therefore, same-sex behavior and bonding are perfectly natural.
6. "The understanding that things have an in-built purpose is being replaced by the idea that everything is subject to man's will and power, which is considered to be without limits."
Okay, now you're revealing your true agenda -- religion. And for those of you who may insist that this is not a religious argument, don't kid yourselves. Natural Law principles are an essential part of Roman Catholicism -- there's a reason this book was published by Ignatius Press (that's St. Ignatius Loyola, in case you don't know).
Sorry, Charlie, but we live in a SECULAR society. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to the mid-East. Sharia law should suit you just fine.
And remember -- many Christian denominations already welcome same-sex marriages. Heck, just this week the Presbyterians voted to allow them as well. Are you trying to restrict THEIR freedom of religion?
7. "The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason"
You're kidding, right??
Gay people in the US are EIGHT TIMES more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.
Just a few weeks ago here in TN, another gay man was beaten unconscious in the middle of the day INSIDE A STORE by another man yelling homophobic slurs at him. Gay men are beaten and killed regularly, just for being gay.
We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.
Roughly one third -- some estimates say one half -- of all homeless youth in the US are gay. They are often on the streets because their own families kicked them out when they found out they had a gay kid.
Gay youth in the US are roughly FOUR TIMES more likely to commit suicide than straight youth. They often kill themselves because of bullying and/or institutionalized homophobia.
In some countries, the mere fact of being homosexual is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
And yet you dare to claim that it's the HOMOPHOBES who are being victimized????
The best answer to this is a response given to McCarthy back in the 50's -- "You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Evidently not.
Here's just a couple examples of his gutbusters --
1. "Legally, a class can be determined only by accident of birth, by such traits as race or sex."
ROFL!! Reilly has completely forgotten about religion -- which is a choice. Thousands (millions?) of people choose to convert every year. According to Reilly's claim, we should remove all protections from religion.
Sound good to you?? ;-D
2. "Likewise, even if homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, what distinguishes homosexuals is their sexual activity."
Ummm, NO. What distinguishes homosexuals is their ATTRACTION -- their ORIENTATION -- not their activity. Celibate or virgin homosexuals are still homosexual, just as celibate or virgin heterosexuals are still heterosexual. Or does Reilly truly believe that a celibate heterosexual somehow becomes gay?? ;-D
This book is sadly hilarious. It's tragic that so many people will swallow this claptrap whole.
And here are the original rebuttals I made to Reilly's ludicrous book blurb -- these alone will give you a good idea of how ridiculous the rest of the book is --
1. "Why are Americans being forced to consider homosexual acts as morally acceptable?"
Nobody is forcing anyone to consider ANY acts as morally acceptable. Many people don't consider gambling, or drinking alcohol, or divorce to be morally acceptable -- yet all are legal. "Legal" does not necessarily mean "moral" -- "legal" only means "keep your nose out of their business, because it isn't hurting you."
2. "Why has the US Supreme Court accepted the validity of same-sex marriage, which, until a decade ago, was unheard of in the history of Western or any other civilization?"
Actually, the history of same-sex marriages goes back for literally thousands of years. At least two Roman EMPERORS were married to men. In fact, Rome didn't fall until a couple of hundred years AFTER same-sex marriage was made illegal in the Roman Empire.
And multiple other ancient civilizations practiced same-sex marriage as well. As far back as the Assyrians we find ancient religious texts containing blessings for same-sex unions. Heck, in ancient Hindu scriptures even some of their own GODS were born from same-sex unions. Get your facts straight.
3. "The power of rationalization - the means by which one mentally transforms wrong into right - drives the gay rights movement"
Oh puhleez. As multiple federal judges have already acknowledged, the ACTUAL impetus behind the gay rights movement is the drive to recognize EQUALITY -- you know, as embodied by that pesky little US Constitution and its annoying little Equal Protection clause.
4. "In other words, we all must say that the bad is good."
You don't have to say anything. You only have to keep your nose out of other peoples' business. That should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?
5. "At stake in the rationalization of homosexual behavior is the notion that human beings are ordered to a purpose that is given by their Nature."
Many, many species of animals out in nature practice same-sex behaviors and form same-sex unions. Heck, 1/4 of ALL black swan pairings are same-sex -- and in bonobo chimps, more than half of ALL sexual behavior is same-sex. And of course there are many other similar examples. Therefore, same-sex behavior and bonding are perfectly natural.
6. "The understanding that things have an in-built purpose is being replaced by the idea that everything is subject to man's will and power, which is considered to be without limits."
Okay, now you're revealing your true agenda -- religion. And for those of you who may insist that this is not a religious argument, don't kid yourselves. Natural Law principles are an essential part of Roman Catholicism -- there's a reason this book was published by Ignatius Press (that's St. Ignatius Loyola, in case you don't know).
Sorry, Charlie, but we live in a SECULAR society. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to the mid-East. Sharia law should suit you just fine.
And remember -- many Christian denominations already welcome same-sex marriages. Heck, just this week the Presbyterians voted to allow them as well. Are you trying to restrict THEIR freedom of religion?
7. "The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason"
You're kidding, right??
Gay people in the US are EIGHT TIMES more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.
Just a few weeks ago here in TN, another gay man was beaten unconscious in the middle of the day INSIDE A STORE by another man yelling homophobic slurs at him. Gay men are beaten and killed regularly, just for being gay.
We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.
Roughly one third -- some estimates say one half -- of all homeless youth in the US are gay. They are often on the streets because their own families kicked them out when they found out they had a gay kid.
Gay youth in the US are roughly FOUR TIMES more likely to commit suicide than straight youth. They often kill themselves because of bullying and/or institutionalized homophobia.
In some countries, the mere fact of being homosexual is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
And yet you dare to claim that it's the HOMOPHOBES who are being victimized????
The best answer to this is a response given to McCarthy back in the 50's -- "You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Evidently not.
July 31, 2014
Mr. Reilly has written a very important book. His thesis could be summarized as, ‘Ideas have consequences, and so do actions based upon them. This is what is going to happen to us as a society if we put the capstone of same-sex marriage into place. We will be living a lie.’
Mr. Reilly begins with an explanation of Natural Law, how this and virtuous behavior was taught by the Greek fathers, especially Socrates and Aristotle, and normative for Western society until ‘enlightened’ by the thinking of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He continues with arguments from justice and morality, presenting a legal history as well as the rationale for the laws and unlike the rhetoric we often hear/read, the reasons for those laws were not to persecute individuals nor deny anyone rights, but to safeguard the sanctity of marriage and childhood, the basis of our society. Mr. Reilly then presented a chronological critique of court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Carey v. Population Services International (1977), Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), as well as others, to show how abandonment of the idea of virtue traditionally held to be necessary to a free people and the substitution of a specious form of liberty based upon a manufactured “right to privacy” that is untethered from any notion of morality has allowed these rulings.
The gist of his ‘Lessons from Biology’ chapter was bleaker than bleak. In Part 2, entitled, ‘Marching through the Institutions’, Reilly examines how the rationalization for homosexual misbehavior has been advanced in Science, Education, Parenting, the Boy Scouts, United States Military, and even our Foreign Policy. Reilly’s writing is precise and concise. He clarified much, answered many questions and I am extremely grateful for his book. It’s one book to keep handy and plan on sharing. Every American today should read this book. And as was noted in friends’ comments below, the book needs to be really read, from beginning to end.
From the front of the book...
‘A man may lie to himself very prettily, but he can never really escape from the knowledge that it is a lie.’ ~Melinda Selmys, former lesbian
<><><><><><><><><>
Started this last night as soon as I downloaded it to my kindle. Robert R. Reilly looks at homosexual arguments and associated behavior from philosophical, legal, social and political perspectives. He begins right off with Socrates and Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics. Whether or not he explores the religious aspects of this issue, I don't know, but from other reviews I've read, as well as my own reading so far, the revealed religious moral side of the question is not the basis of his argument. His precise use of language is refreshing.
Mr. Reilly begins with an explanation of Natural Law, how this and virtuous behavior was taught by the Greek fathers, especially Socrates and Aristotle, and normative for Western society until ‘enlightened’ by the thinking of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He continues with arguments from justice and morality, presenting a legal history as well as the rationale for the laws and unlike the rhetoric we often hear/read, the reasons for those laws were not to persecute individuals nor deny anyone rights, but to safeguard the sanctity of marriage and childhood, the basis of our society. Mr. Reilly then presented a chronological critique of court cases: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Carey v. Population Services International (1977), Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), as well as others, to show how abandonment of the idea of virtue traditionally held to be necessary to a free people and the substitution of a specious form of liberty based upon a manufactured “right to privacy” that is untethered from any notion of morality has allowed these rulings.
The gist of his ‘Lessons from Biology’ chapter was bleaker than bleak. In Part 2, entitled, ‘Marching through the Institutions’, Reilly examines how the rationalization for homosexual misbehavior has been advanced in Science, Education, Parenting, the Boy Scouts, United States Military, and even our Foreign Policy. Reilly’s writing is precise and concise. He clarified much, answered many questions and I am extremely grateful for his book. It’s one book to keep handy and plan on sharing. Every American today should read this book. And as was noted in friends’ comments below, the book needs to be really read, from beginning to end.
From the front of the book...
‘A man may lie to himself very prettily, but he can never really escape from the knowledge that it is a lie.’ ~Melinda Selmys, former lesbian
<><><><><><><><><>
Started this last night as soon as I downloaded it to my kindle. Robert R. Reilly looks at homosexual arguments and associated behavior from philosophical, legal, social and political perspectives. He begins right off with Socrates and Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics. Whether or not he explores the religious aspects of this issue, I don't know, but from other reviews I've read, as well as my own reading so far, the revealed religious moral side of the question is not the basis of his argument. His precise use of language is refreshing.
June 2, 2016
Please note that when I say I have "read" this book, I have tolerated pages 1-8, 12 and the index on the Amazon preview. There is no way on earth that I am paying £8 for this piece of hateful trash trying to pass itself off as some kind of intellectual critique of the rationalisation of homosexuality.
As an academic within the discipline of gender and sexual politics, I do try to consider all perspectives objectively. I also don't usually rate books that I "did not finish".
However, a book that starts, "Writing about homosexuality has become a growth industry, one writer has quipped" is...well, I can't even find words for it. Which writer quipped this, exactly? And well done, Robert R. Reilly for buying into that growth industry at the same time as berating it. That's impressive.
Within the eight pages I read, sodomy was referred to as being "among other peculariarly homosexual practices" (uh huh?). Then there was the inclusion of a comparison to euthanasia performed by Hitler's physician, with the caveat that it was not meant as a parallel, and yet by its inclusion at all, it is exactly that.
So with this review I am breaking my own rules. I'm reviewing a book I have not read in its entirety. Nor will I ever read this book in its entirety, unless the author signs a legal agreement to use the money to undergo an education or treatment programme - whichever of those he needs in order to not be a loathsome, ignorant bigot.
As an academic within the discipline of gender and sexual politics, I do try to consider all perspectives objectively. I also don't usually rate books that I "did not finish".
However, a book that starts, "Writing about homosexuality has become a growth industry, one writer has quipped" is...well, I can't even find words for it. Which writer quipped this, exactly? And well done, Robert R. Reilly for buying into that growth industry at the same time as berating it. That's impressive.
Within the eight pages I read, sodomy was referred to as being "among other peculariarly homosexual practices" (uh huh?). Then there was the inclusion of a comparison to euthanasia performed by Hitler's physician, with the caveat that it was not meant as a parallel, and yet by its inclusion at all, it is exactly that.
So with this review I am breaking my own rules. I'm reviewing a book I have not read in its entirety. Nor will I ever read this book in its entirety, unless the author signs a legal agreement to use the money to undergo an education or treatment programme - whichever of those he needs in order to not be a loathsome, ignorant bigot.
October 20, 2015
STFU. This is complete and utter homophobic bullshit. STFU.
July 18, 2016
How the fuck do books like this keep getting published?
nope-never
June 24, 2014This book was actually published?
In hardcover no less? Seriously?
Ok, at my age I have discovered there really is no limit to idiocy, people rationalizing and excusing their behavior and expect others to buy their bullshit.
I'm all out of patience for shit like this.
This quote alone The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic. should be enough to have us running for the hills and possibly considering boycotting publishers of such books.
In hardcover no less? Seriously?
Ok, at my age I have discovered there really is no limit to idiocy, people rationalizing and excusing their behavior and expect others to buy their bullshit.
I'm all out of patience for shit like this.
This quote alone The further institutionalization of homosexuality will mean the triumph of force over reason, thus undermining the very foundations of the American Republic. should be enough to have us running for the hills and possibly considering boycotting publishers of such books.
burn
May 7, 2014Hell no. This piece of homophobic shit can go burn.
Also some of the facts presented in the blurb are seriously questionable.
Fuck this.
Also some of the facts presented in the blurb are seriously questionable.
Fuck this.
not-happening-ever
June 23, 2014You know how those air fresheners never really cover the scent after someone has taken a shit?
Neither do lots of big words in the blurb. It is still obviously shit.
Neither do lots of big words in the blurb. It is still obviously shit.
March 11, 2015
Love is love.
I don't feel the need to read this book. I also don't understand why anyone feels the need to write or publish such a book.
June 23, 2014
This book doesn't even pretend to be objective - it is a vicious homophobic polemic by an extreme revanchist catholic. The author focuses almost exclusively on gay men (don't these types always - I wonder why?) whom he refers to as "sodomites" repeatedly in order to dehumanize a class of people he views as sub-human. Every far right conspiracy chestnut is thrown in - sexual deviants, child predators, terrorists, subversives. If you substituted jews for gays, you would recognize anti-semitic tropes of a small, devious minority infiltrating white christian society in order to subvert it from within - including "forcing" the APA to de-list homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 and then rapidly taking over the media, hollywood, the universities, the social sciences, the courts and even the mainline churches. His solution is to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Lawrence v Texas and re-criminalizing "sodomy" with strict prison sentences. Just for good measure, reverse the APA decision and experiment with aversion therapy (maybe the good old shock treatments - who knows) to offer a cure to repentant sinners.
This book could have been written by Paul Cameron.
This book could have been written by Paul Cameron.
June 23, 2014
Making Gay Okay is a book that attempts to explain the pervasive homosexual culture that has been penetrating the United States in the past several decades. Robert Reilly begins his book by looking at the culture war. He demonstrates how people are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, gay "marriage," and the rationalization and subsequent "victimization" of homosexuals. He then looks at marriage and gay "marriage" under the lenses of nature, philosophy, biology, and morality.
The second section of the book details all the different institutions in which homosexuality is getting a toehold. In this book, he points out the Boy Scouts, military, foreign policy, education, and parenting. As a young parent who has to raise children in this growing and changing world, these examples were poignant which made me stop and think. It's a scary climate, the children of this next generation will be growing up in, and it's even scarier the amount of things we will have to shield our children from.
This was a well-written and well-argued book. Many will try and claim this book is bigoted or hate-filled, but it is simply presented from a traditional perspective. I can't say that it was a book I sought to read, but it was enlightening to read. I feel more informed on the subject matter, and feel like I have some good counterarguments next time I am put in a situation where people are attacking me for my belief in traditional marriage. If you are interested in this topic, you will find the book fascinating. If not, you're probably better off checking the book out at the library or just ignoring it completely.
The second section of the book details all the different institutions in which homosexuality is getting a toehold. In this book, he points out the Boy Scouts, military, foreign policy, education, and parenting. As a young parent who has to raise children in this growing and changing world, these examples were poignant which made me stop and think. It's a scary climate, the children of this next generation will be growing up in, and it's even scarier the amount of things we will have to shield our children from.
This was a well-written and well-argued book. Many will try and claim this book is bigoted or hate-filled, but it is simply presented from a traditional perspective. I can't say that it was a book I sought to read, but it was enlightening to read. I feel more informed on the subject matter, and feel like I have some good counterarguments next time I am put in a situation where people are attacking me for my belief in traditional marriage. If you are interested in this topic, you will find the book fascinating. If not, you're probably better off checking the book out at the library or just ignoring it completely.
June 22, 2016
I read partially this book (yep, title and blurb) and under a doctoral language costume it shows only blatantly ignorant bigotry.
Despicable.
Despicable.
July 16, 2015
Disclaimer: This review consists of just snarky gifs
And now for the finishing move:
And now for the finishing move:
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 8, 2014
This book catalogues with depressing clarity and forthrightness the fast march that the rationalization of homosexual behavior is making through our society's institutions. He makes uses of Aristotelian ideas of natural law rather than Scripture to make his case and illustrates clearly the far reaching and, one would hope, unintended consequences on society this change will have. Very helpful book to make sense of the rapid and unprecedented changes that the broad acceptance of the gay agenda is having on our society and the world.
December 29, 2022
9/10.
What does "gay" mean? Why has "gay" replaced "homosexual", which replaced "queer", which replaced "sodomite"? What is hiding under this term, "gay"?
What is hiding is the act of sodomy itself — anal sex. No one talks about what gayness is, only that it is another form of "love". And, of course, we should be able to "love" anyone we want to, right? Having sex with donkeys is great, right? My donkey and I love each other. We should get married so that its anus can get ripped apart.
How utterly disgusting. It goes against the law of Nature, which is what Reilly bases this book upon. What is the natural law of sex? The natural law is that it should take place between a man and a woman, first of all. A woman's vagina is designed for a man's penis, for the purpose of procreation. The pleasure derived from sex is oriented toward reproduction, not for senseless mental stimulation. Just as the mouth is designed to eat, the ear to hear, and the nose to smell, so too are the genitals designed to reproduce. That is their natural function. Deviations from that natural function are properly called perversions.
One eats food for nutrition. If one eats food for pleasure's sake only, one soon becomes fat and hates one's self. The activity has been displaced from its natural, teleological purpose. One uses one's ear for hearing. If it is used to stuff objects into, your hearing is damaged and you suffer.
The anus is designed for excretion. It is designed to push objects out. It is not designed to put objects in. If there is a freeway going out of the city, thousands of cars speeding along it, and you decide to go into the city on the same road, what happens? You get decimated. So too do sodomites' anuses.
Sodomites (those who participate in anal sex) have 420x the rate of AIDS and HIV. 95% of all HIV cases come from sodomitical men. The average lifespan of a homosexual is decreased by 20 years (smoking decreases one's lifespan, on average, by 14 years). Sodomy is perhaps the largest health risk in society. It is extremely unhealthy and contrary to nature (perverse).
Sodomites fornicate with each other senselessly. A study in 1978 found that around 45% of sodomites had over 500 sexual partners, and 25% had over 1000 sexual partners (!). Around 80% of sodomites' sexual encounters are one-night stands. They are screwing each other left and right in the bathrooms of gay nightclubs. Sodomitical "partnership" does not exist. A study of 150 sodomite "partners" found that not one of them was monogamous. Sodomites have an insatiable lust; they are literally revolting against nature. They have overwhelmingly high rates of sexual diseases and anal cancer.
They tell us that they were "born gay". They supposedly cannot change their sexual orientation. Yet conversion therapy, what our media masters tell us is a "pseudoscience", has a success rate of around 50% (when looked at with unbiased studies). We must think of sodomites not as an unchangeable class of people (race, sex), but as people with an addiction to deviant and perverse behavior. People with deviant behaviors are constantly "discriminated against". Drunk driving laws discriminate against alcoholics. Voting laws often discriminate against criminals.
Are these laws against the divine principles of "alcoholic rights" and "criminal rights"? Or are they a proper criminalization of a deviant behavior that will harm society? I think the latter.
So how does the propagation and sanctification of sodomy affect society? First, it destroys the very foundation of society, the family. "Society" is a collection of cities, which are a collection of communities, which are a collection of families. The family is the first layer of human affairs. Only through the pairing of man and woman, united into one in love and reproduction, does mankind go on. Only through the duality of father and mother is the child properly disciplined, cared for, and educated about socio-sexual norms.
When we look at children raised by one parent, two women, or two men, they do not turn out very well. Their caretakers have betrayed the natural order. These children have around a 40% chance of turning LGBTP and suffer a range of mental conditions at greatly heightened rates. They struggle to socially interact with their peers, not having a loving model to look after.
Once again we see that when you cannot escape Mother Nature. If you try to defy Her, you will suffer. You cannot escape Her grasp: either you conform to the Good, True, and Beautiful, or you degenerate in infantile revolt. No matter how much the sodomites shout, the results of their behavior will be clear to anyone with their eyes open.
What does "gay" mean? Why has "gay" replaced "homosexual", which replaced "queer", which replaced "sodomite"? What is hiding under this term, "gay"?
What is hiding is the act of sodomy itself — anal sex. No one talks about what gayness is, only that it is another form of "love". And, of course, we should be able to "love" anyone we want to, right? Having sex with donkeys is great, right? My donkey and I love each other. We should get married so that its anus can get ripped apart.
How utterly disgusting. It goes against the law of Nature, which is what Reilly bases this book upon. What is the natural law of sex? The natural law is that it should take place between a man and a woman, first of all. A woman's vagina is designed for a man's penis, for the purpose of procreation. The pleasure derived from sex is oriented toward reproduction, not for senseless mental stimulation. Just as the mouth is designed to eat, the ear to hear, and the nose to smell, so too are the genitals designed to reproduce. That is their natural function. Deviations from that natural function are properly called perversions.
One eats food for nutrition. If one eats food for pleasure's sake only, one soon becomes fat and hates one's self. The activity has been displaced from its natural, teleological purpose. One uses one's ear for hearing. If it is used to stuff objects into, your hearing is damaged and you suffer.
The anus is designed for excretion. It is designed to push objects out. It is not designed to put objects in. If there is a freeway going out of the city, thousands of cars speeding along it, and you decide to go into the city on the same road, what happens? You get decimated. So too do sodomites' anuses.
Sodomites (those who participate in anal sex) have 420x the rate of AIDS and HIV. 95% of all HIV cases come from sodomitical men. The average lifespan of a homosexual is decreased by 20 years (smoking decreases one's lifespan, on average, by 14 years). Sodomy is perhaps the largest health risk in society. It is extremely unhealthy and contrary to nature (perverse).
Sodomites fornicate with each other senselessly. A study in 1978 found that around 45% of sodomites had over 500 sexual partners, and 25% had over 1000 sexual partners (!). Around 80% of sodomites' sexual encounters are one-night stands. They are screwing each other left and right in the bathrooms of gay nightclubs. Sodomitical "partnership" does not exist. A study of 150 sodomite "partners" found that not one of them was monogamous. Sodomites have an insatiable lust; they are literally revolting against nature. They have overwhelmingly high rates of sexual diseases and anal cancer.
They tell us that they were "born gay". They supposedly cannot change their sexual orientation. Yet conversion therapy, what our media masters tell us is a "pseudoscience", has a success rate of around 50% (when looked at with unbiased studies). We must think of sodomites not as an unchangeable class of people (race, sex), but as people with an addiction to deviant and perverse behavior. People with deviant behaviors are constantly "discriminated against". Drunk driving laws discriminate against alcoholics. Voting laws often discriminate against criminals.
Are these laws against the divine principles of "alcoholic rights" and "criminal rights"? Or are they a proper criminalization of a deviant behavior that will harm society? I think the latter.
So how does the propagation and sanctification of sodomy affect society? First, it destroys the very foundation of society, the family. "Society" is a collection of cities, which are a collection of communities, which are a collection of families. The family is the first layer of human affairs. Only through the pairing of man and woman, united into one in love and reproduction, does mankind go on. Only through the duality of father and mother is the child properly disciplined, cared for, and educated about socio-sexual norms.
When we look at children raised by one parent, two women, or two men, they do not turn out very well. Their caretakers have betrayed the natural order. These children have around a 40% chance of turning LGBTP and suffer a range of mental conditions at greatly heightened rates. They struggle to socially interact with their peers, not having a loving model to look after.
Once again we see that when you cannot escape Mother Nature. If you try to defy Her, you will suffer. You cannot escape Her grasp: either you conform to the Good, True, and Beautiful, or you degenerate in infantile revolt. No matter how much the sodomites shout, the results of their behavior will be clear to anyone with their eyes open.
into-the-void
April 14, 2016Yawn. I swear the conservative Christian Taliban right sure likes to hear themselves preach on and on.
September 17, 2014
I first came across Robert R. Reilly and his writings when I read his marvelous book “The Closing of the Muslim Mind.” I was greatly impressed with the clarity of his ideas, the high quality of his writing, and the incredibly profound insights that he brought to the table of one of the most troubling and consequential issues of the modern world. In that book he showed very clearly how certain ideas, that may seem rather esoteric and abstract, can have a profound consequence and influence on shaping an entire culture and civilization for centuries or even millennia. It turns out that the intellectual decisions made over a millennium ago are still exerting an enormous influence on the day-to-day politics of the modern World.
In “Making Gay Okay” Reilly brings back his sharp and probing insights to one of the most divisive, if not THE most divisive, political debates in the modern Western world. The current aggressive push to create the legal fiction of “gay marriage” is just the latest, but sadly probably not the last, installment in the profoundly misguided and vicious promotion of the radical gay agenda. The normalization of homosexual behavior, and, even worse, its active promotion has been going on for decades, and will likely only intensify in the upcoming years. This is far from a peaceful and spontaneous grassroots movement that has often been portrayed in the popular media. It is a well-organized, well funded, and politically extremely well connected lobby that has inserted its tentacles in all aspects of the modern life, trying to undermine them or destroy them.
This book consists of two main parts. The first part deals with the moral and philosophical underpinnings of our understanding of human sexuality and the key role that a well-structured family life plays in the foundation of all political arrangements. These are neither novel nor radical ideas, nor do they stem from some kind of misguided prejudice. These are well-thought out fundamental principles that have stood the test of time and have been the bedrock of every successful society. These are not “religious” ideas per se, but something that every school of thought had recognized throughout human history. Reilly at no point relies on religious or theological sources to make his arguments or quotations. One thinker that he keeps going back to is Aristotle and the virtue ethics that he espoused. In Reilly’s view one thinker that stands squarely opposed to the virtue ethics, and the intellectual godfather of all the permissive social movements over the past few centuries, is Rousseau. Rousseau posited the ideal of an atomic individual unencumbered by any social norms as the starting point of all ethical considerations. In a way we are right now living in a moment when Rousseauean philosophy is achieving its full political force. This part of the book clearly showcases Reilly’s masterful ability to go back to the root ideas behind all of the present day controversies. Ideas have consequences, and we disregard engaging with ideas and their implication at our own peril.
The second part of the book concerns a well-documented presentation of the several main ways that the homosexual agenda has undermined several key institutions. Through coercive political tactics aggressive homosexuals and their ideological allies have undermined several erstwhile irreproachable and solid social and cultural institutions. Through predominantly coercive and underhanded tactics (many of which are well documented and acknowledged in their own propaganda) they have undermined the medical profession, the military, the judiciary, the educational system, boy scouts, and many other institutions, large and small. Reilly’s account of these assails is both sobering and depressing. Many of the most trusted institutions that had previously been pillars of the moral order have succumbed to this agenda and have crumbled in a frighteningly short timespans. In all of these cases, though, the change has come from the “top,” rather as a consequence of the changing social mores.
The radical homosexual agenda has many intellectual similarities with all the other totalitarian ideologies, such as Communism and Jihadism. It too aims at nothing short of total overthrow of a fundamental value system and replacing it with its own perverted version of the same. In its aim of promoting of the total sexual license it has no compunction of trampling all the other much more fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association. That’s why knowing about their agenda and fully appreciating their tactics and aims is of a paramount importance for the preservation of liberty in all of its forms. Robert Reilly’s book goes a long way in that direction, and it’s one of the most important books on this topic to come out. I cannot recommend it strongly enough.
In “Making Gay Okay” Reilly brings back his sharp and probing insights to one of the most divisive, if not THE most divisive, political debates in the modern Western world. The current aggressive push to create the legal fiction of “gay marriage” is just the latest, but sadly probably not the last, installment in the profoundly misguided and vicious promotion of the radical gay agenda. The normalization of homosexual behavior, and, even worse, its active promotion has been going on for decades, and will likely only intensify in the upcoming years. This is far from a peaceful and spontaneous grassroots movement that has often been portrayed in the popular media. It is a well-organized, well funded, and politically extremely well connected lobby that has inserted its tentacles in all aspects of the modern life, trying to undermine them or destroy them.
This book consists of two main parts. The first part deals with the moral and philosophical underpinnings of our understanding of human sexuality and the key role that a well-structured family life plays in the foundation of all political arrangements. These are neither novel nor radical ideas, nor do they stem from some kind of misguided prejudice. These are well-thought out fundamental principles that have stood the test of time and have been the bedrock of every successful society. These are not “religious” ideas per se, but something that every school of thought had recognized throughout human history. Reilly at no point relies on religious or theological sources to make his arguments or quotations. One thinker that he keeps going back to is Aristotle and the virtue ethics that he espoused. In Reilly’s view one thinker that stands squarely opposed to the virtue ethics, and the intellectual godfather of all the permissive social movements over the past few centuries, is Rousseau. Rousseau posited the ideal of an atomic individual unencumbered by any social norms as the starting point of all ethical considerations. In a way we are right now living in a moment when Rousseauean philosophy is achieving its full political force. This part of the book clearly showcases Reilly’s masterful ability to go back to the root ideas behind all of the present day controversies. Ideas have consequences, and we disregard engaging with ideas and their implication at our own peril.
The second part of the book concerns a well-documented presentation of the several main ways that the homosexual agenda has undermined several key institutions. Through coercive political tactics aggressive homosexuals and their ideological allies have undermined several erstwhile irreproachable and solid social and cultural institutions. Through predominantly coercive and underhanded tactics (many of which are well documented and acknowledged in their own propaganda) they have undermined the medical profession, the military, the judiciary, the educational system, boy scouts, and many other institutions, large and small. Reilly’s account of these assails is both sobering and depressing. Many of the most trusted institutions that had previously been pillars of the moral order have succumbed to this agenda and have crumbled in a frighteningly short timespans. In all of these cases, though, the change has come from the “top,” rather as a consequence of the changing social mores.
The radical homosexual agenda has many intellectual similarities with all the other totalitarian ideologies, such as Communism and Jihadism. It too aims at nothing short of total overthrow of a fundamental value system and replacing it with its own perverted version of the same. In its aim of promoting of the total sexual license it has no compunction of trampling all the other much more fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association. That’s why knowing about their agenda and fully appreciating their tactics and aims is of a paramount importance for the preservation of liberty in all of its forms. Robert Reilly’s book goes a long way in that direction, and it’s one of the most important books on this topic to come out. I cannot recommend it strongly enough.
August 5, 2014
I toiled my way through every last page of this book, and blogged through every disastrous, scantily-sourced, biased chapter. I view this as a service to mankind, and to scholars and grad students everywhere on how not to write a book on a controversial subject.
The book is an attempt to make a case against gay marriage on the basis of Natural Law. Reilly is a Catholic writer, so this comes to no surprise. However, Natural Law theory has a fatal flaw - the argumentum ad naturam fallacy that "what is" (aka, nature) can define for us "what ought to be." That is, it presumes that moral ethics can be deduced from nature. The whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
But there are additional problems. Reilly's scholarship is heavily one-sided. That is, his book is not a reasoned case, but a rhetorical ideology-driven argument. When 90% of your sources are from right-wing thinktanks and most of your quotes concerning your opponents you simply lift right out of those articles without doing much first-hand research, your book is no longer a scholarly one. When 90% of those articles you cite are internet articles, YouTube videos, and Buzzfeed posts, you drop further still from the scholarly heights. Additionally, when you use out-of-date and discredited information (such as relying upon Dr. Satinger or NARTH) uncritically when these are highly contested claims about which you speak like they were established facts, you are now distorting information in order to make your case stronger. And when you say that the official scientific, scholarly, psychological, and medical institutions have been captured by the "gay agenda" and therefore cannot be trusted, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist.
The book is an attempt to make a case against gay marriage on the basis of Natural Law. Reilly is a Catholic writer, so this comes to no surprise. However, Natural Law theory has a fatal flaw - the argumentum ad naturam fallacy that "what is" (aka, nature) can define for us "what ought to be." That is, it presumes that moral ethics can be deduced from nature. The whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
But there are additional problems. Reilly's scholarship is heavily one-sided. That is, his book is not a reasoned case, but a rhetorical ideology-driven argument. When 90% of your sources are from right-wing thinktanks and most of your quotes concerning your opponents you simply lift right out of those articles without doing much first-hand research, your book is no longer a scholarly one. When 90% of those articles you cite are internet articles, YouTube videos, and Buzzfeed posts, you drop further still from the scholarly heights. Additionally, when you use out-of-date and discredited information (such as relying upon Dr. Satinger or NARTH) uncritically when these are highly contested claims about which you speak like they were established facts, you are now distorting information in order to make your case stronger. And when you say that the official scientific, scholarly, psychological, and medical institutions have been captured by the "gay agenda" and therefore cannot be trusted, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist.
May 10, 2015
Incredible book. The author posits that we have moved from an Aristotelian view of nature to one like Rousseau's view, where "human nature is not to have a nature". This rejection/denial of our created nature leads to disorder, but depraved man seeks to rationalize his behavior and have it affirmed by others. Thus, the book surveys the institutionalization of homosexuality in our culture. He is calm, rational, never shrill, simply laying out the position that this battle is over the nature of reality and who determines that nature.
Reilly is skilled at making his point by giving examples to show how our thinking is clouded by propaganda. "Alcoholics, by definition, are alcoholics for life. If they wish to remain sober, they must never drink again. Are homosexuals like this also? Will they forever suffer from (or celebrate) their inclination? There is mixed evidence regarding this. Of those wanting to change, some have been able to; some have not. Except in the very real terms of personal hardship, however, it does not really matter. After all, everyone is disposed to some moral disorder or another. The immutability of the condition or of the inclination is irrelevant to the moral character of the acts to which they are predisposed. Of course, some homosexual apologists find the genetic excuse exculpatory. Therefore, they need it for the rationalization of their behavior: If I am this way by Nature, how can I help what I do? The alcoholic could use the same justification for his drunkenness. In neither case does the inclination neuter free will or remove responsibility for actions. To say otherwise robs the human actor of moral dignity."
I would recommend this book to everyone, because it helps to think through the issues apart from the emotional appeals which bypass logic and reason and have led us further into trouble.
Reilly is skilled at making his point by giving examples to show how our thinking is clouded by propaganda. "Alcoholics, by definition, are alcoholics for life. If they wish to remain sober, they must never drink again. Are homosexuals like this also? Will they forever suffer from (or celebrate) their inclination? There is mixed evidence regarding this. Of those wanting to change, some have been able to; some have not. Except in the very real terms of personal hardship, however, it does not really matter. After all, everyone is disposed to some moral disorder or another. The immutability of the condition or of the inclination is irrelevant to the moral character of the acts to which they are predisposed. Of course, some homosexual apologists find the genetic excuse exculpatory. Therefore, they need it for the rationalization of their behavior: If I am this way by Nature, how can I help what I do? The alcoholic could use the same justification for his drunkenness. In neither case does the inclination neuter free will or remove responsibility for actions. To say otherwise robs the human actor of moral dignity."
I would recommend this book to everyone, because it helps to think through the issues apart from the emotional appeals which bypass logic and reason and have led us further into trouble.
October 28, 2014
Vital truth telling to a lying culture
My expectations for this book were low given the uninspiring title, but I decided to give it a chance. I am very glad I did as I now consider "Making Gay Okay" one of the top 10 reads of my lifetime. We instinctively know that homosexuality is bad for our culture but, aside from the condemnations found in the bible, we have a hard time articulating why. Why is homosexuality inherently destructive, and how is homosexual marriage unfair? Mr. Reilly beautifully articulates from Aristotelian ethics the reasons that homosexuality is a negation of reason, a negation of society, inherently totalitarian and fascistic. We must stop lying to ourselves immediately about its nature before it's too late. The time may already be past.
My expectations for this book were low given the uninspiring title, but I decided to give it a chance. I am very glad I did as I now consider "Making Gay Okay" one of the top 10 reads of my lifetime. We instinctively know that homosexuality is bad for our culture but, aside from the condemnations found in the bible, we have a hard time articulating why. Why is homosexuality inherently destructive, and how is homosexual marriage unfair? Mr. Reilly beautifully articulates from Aristotelian ethics the reasons that homosexuality is a negation of reason, a negation of society, inherently totalitarian and fascistic. We must stop lying to ourselves immediately about its nature before it's too late. The time may already be past.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 102 reviews