Natural Law: Aristotle vs Rousseau

A Review of Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Gay-Okay-Rationalizing-Homosexual/dp/1586178334/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=whatdoesthepr-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=LSGYMEZX5UNBTIQH&creativeASIN=1586178334