It is written that the Natural law is inscribed in the hearts of all men; and this is very vividly illustrated in our spontaneous reaction to the vice of sodomy. Here the law coded in us all makes itself felt at the level of physiology, in the natural disgust, revulsion, and loathing most anybody, no matter how worldly and liberal they may like to think they are, experiences at the sight or even the thought of this particular vice. Reason agrees with the natural sentiment that, of all the aberrations of the procreative act, sodomy is especially vile; for, over and above the simple departure from the Natural ends to which sexuality is ordered that any sexual sin involves in it, sodomy is a species of treason. The man who allows himself to be used as a woman falls from the exalted place of a man, something everywhere regarded as utterly contemptible- it is instructive that the Mohammedan jurisprudents saw fit to punish it by causing the offender to fall from a tall place- and rightly so, since it is profoundly threatening to the pillar and very unit of society: the patriarchal household.
By definition there can be no household where men and women aren’t interested in each other to begin with, and in any case matrimony is disordered to a more or less grave extent when there is confusion regarding, or outright mutiny against, the proper roles of the sexes in their natural hierarchy (something the present incidence of divorce and concubinage vividly attests to). Not only the matrimonial, but also the filial hierarchy is disrupted and threatened; the sodomite, by forfeiting his manhood, actually or figuratively deprives his father of a son, an heir and an arm to carry on his name, curate his estate, take up his cause, and keep his faith and his law. Even where sodomy doesn’t actually incur any special legal or social disability to act in that capacity, it is understood by all and sundry as the ultimate personal rejection of one’s father; traditionally, cursing one’s own father was punished by death, and a fortiori so was sodomy. It follows that the disgust and loathing one feels at the sight or thought of sodomy involves not only an urge one to avoid it, but to punish it. The sentiment is no mere irrational passion; it is an instinct of justice that agrees, with right Reason, that sodomy is a species of petty treason.
Of course, Liberal ideology, in its insane and ultimately self-defeating effort to abolish society, considered as a barrier to the ambitions and desires of the anomic individual and the totalitarian State alike, upholds petty treason as a virtue and generally supports anything that undermines patriarchy and the family, and so holds the sodomite to be a sacred person to be “celebrated”. And yet the natural sentiment remains intact; note in this respect that, while entertainment media foists the ideology of sodomy on the viewing public every chance it gets, it’s still very rare for them to show two guys getting it on or even kissing onscreen. People just don’t want to see it, and the media is forced to defer, Liberal ideology notwithstanding.
The State abuses itself greatly by permitting what God and the nature of things forbid; in doing so, it is not only wicked, but extraordinarily foolish. Liberals like to argue, on behalf of legalizing intrinsically illegal vices such as sodomy, that “you can’t legislate morality”. This is perfectly true- but not for the reasons Liberals think. That you can’t legislate morality doesn’t mean that the State is somehow disabled from, like, prohibiting crime and such, viz. from doing what the State was instituted to do. What it does mean is that you can’t abolish the natural sentiments of Man by legislative or judicial fiat; and this has grave implications for the authority of the State.
A State, par excellence, is an organization with a monopoly on the prosecution of justice. The authority of the State is legitimate, viz. taken seriously by its subjects on the interior and its rivals on the exterior, to the extent that it is successful in asserting and defending this monopoly. When the State refuses to prosecute justice according to the commonly-held norms of mankind, its authority is immediately called into question. It appears monstrous and depraved. What’s more, it appears weak. It is not always evident, especially to people from the Muslim and other parts of the world, that the State disdains to prosecute certain offenses; it seems just as plausible that the State cannot do so, because it isn’t strong enough to. And nobody, especially the aforementioned, likes to take orders from a weakling or, worse yet, a homosexual or other figurative or actual woman.
And indeed, considered objectively, a State that, whether willfully or simply by impotence, fails to prosecute inherent wrongs on a categorical basis is a failed State by definition. It is pathological, and subject to the same sort of teleological corrective action at the social-system level as happens at the biological level when, say, scar tissue forms across a gaping tissular wound. Demand, as the economists say, creates its own supply; and when the State fails to supply satisfaction where justice demands it, then some people, emboldened by the perceived weakness of the State and in any case justified in their own eyes by its moral depravity and dereliction, take it upon themselves to supply private-sector justice on their own initiative. This, in turn, makes the State appear even weaker, since this time the disorder is much more serious than debauchery and, this time, the State really is powerless against it; the authority of the State becomes even more contemptible as a result, and a vicious spiral is set into motion.
The only way for the State to stop this pathological downwards spiral into anarchy is to work with the nature of things (including its own) and not against it and do the job the State is supposed to do: promote virtue and suppress vice. Failing that, the State by dereliction and default outsources one of its key functions to whatever other actor who takes it upon himself to fill the gap, and trades an orderly and regular public administration of justice for disorderly and irregular private justice, as a pathological response to a pathological situation. Put simply, if the State cannot answer that which is intrinsically hateful with the power of the sword, then somebody else will. Either way, the law of Nature has its say; and the blame for whatever innocent blood is shed in the disordered and pathological prosecution of private justice rests entirely with a State that has disgracefully abandoned both its solemn duty and Stately dignity at once.