Robert Reilly's "Making Gay Okay" explains what's in store.
The movement to normalize homosexuality has seen one more institution, the U.S. Supreme Court, cave before it. On October 7, the Court refused to uphold the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, allowing lower court rulings overturning democratically enacted gay “marriage” bans in five states to stand.
Many have been surprised by the speed with which the homosexual "rights" movement has steamrolled its opposition over the past few years, overturning common sense understandings of marriage, family, and sexual disorders that have been around, well, forever. Philosophy, psychiatry, and higher education in general were the first to capitulate to the gay lobby. Primary and secondary schools in many school districts followed, and are now mainstreaming homosexual relationships and behavior to their captive young audiences. The U.S. military is following orders from the Commander-in-Chief to allow openly homosexual men and women in its ranks. Even the Boy Scouts, whose leadership once demanded that their members be “morally straight,” have started to give way.
One observer who is not surprised is Robert Reilly, who published a brilliant book earlier this year about the danger to the social contract posed by the modern homosexual rights movement. "Making Gay Okay" is both a practical primer that details each of these homosexual advances and a philosophical treatise explaining why, in his words, “rationalizing homosexual behavior is changing everything.”
The long march of sexual progressives through America’s institutions began almost a half century ago with an assault on the practice of psychiatry, which then defined homosexuality as a “sexual deviation … toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances … with objects other than people of the opposite sex.” Reilly documents how Gay Liberation Front (how quaint that phrase sounds now) activists loudly disrupted APA meetings in the early seventies, finally getting their way in 1973, when homosexuality was delisted as a mental illness.
Unearthing new accounts of that effort, Reilly quotes lesbian activist Kay Lahusen as saying that the delisting “was always more of a political decision than a medical decision” and goes on to tell how by1987 the very word “homosexual” ceased to exist as a category. As he notes, “The victory was complete. The disorder had disappeared. No treatment required or welcome.” Psychiatry had been suborned.
In a sign of what was to come, as soon as homosexual activists had erased – at least within the discipline of psychiatry – the stigma associated with their behavior, they went on the offensive, portraying homosexual inclinations as a positive, even desirable, state of mind and homosexual practices as beneficial. On the state level, Reilly points out, these efforts focused on passing laws banning reparative therapy for adolescents. California, for example, in 2012 “prohibits mental health providers … from engaging in sexual reorientation change efforts … with a patient under 18 years of age.”
The homosexual movement claims that its members’ sexual preferences are an immutable characteristic, like race. Reilly defeats this claim by documenting, in copious detail, how many of those who have wished to change their orientation have successfully done so. He asks, “If it were immutable, where has this class been throughout thousands of years of recorded history?”
The undermining of science by the homosexual movement continued as it co-opted the discipline of psychology to its cause. Here the claim, first made by the movement and then repeated by complicit academics, is that same-sex parenting is as successful as parenting done by heterosexual couples. The evidence, as again ably summarized by Reilly, is that there are marked differences in outcomes, with children raised by a father and a mother doing far better than those raised by homosexual couples.