[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E746-E747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERVIEW WITH DR. JEFFREY SATINOVER
______
HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, May 8, 1996
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, this is about the best book on homosexuality
written in our lifetime. Read this interview and learn. And pray.
[From the Wanderer, Apr. 18, 1996]
The Wanderer Interviews Dr. Jeffrey Satinover
(By Paul Likoudis)
Q. Do you accept the concept of mediarchy, that is, that
the United States is ruled by a media elite? If so, to what
extent are people's feelings and thought patterns manipulated
by homosexuals or homosexualists through the mass media?
A. I think the best answer comes from Russian author
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. In his 1978 graduation address at
Harvard--which was not well-received by the liberal elite--he
said that the degree of thought control exercised by the
Western media in relatively spontaneous ways was far more
effective and tyrannical in its capacity to impede free
thought among Americans than anything ever achieved by the
totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union.
Let me give you one example and then make a generalization:
There was a series of studies published in scientific
journals which tested and measured the effect of various
short descriptions of possible causes of homosexuality on
subjects' attitudes toward homosexuality.
These studies showed that certain carefully crafted
statements such as ``homosexuality is biological,'' as
opposed to ``developmental,'' would cause a dramatic shift
among naive subjects toward accepting and approving
homosexuality.
Recognizing this, gay activist promoters deliberately,
carefully, and widely promulgated the fantasy that
homosexuality is ``genetic.'' This has had an enormous impact
as predicted, even though there is not a shred of evidence
for it. Such evidence as there is merely supports the
possibility that there are nonsexual inherited factors that
make homosexuality easier.
Tactical manuals aimed at educating activists and
sympathizers are routinely published by major houses and are
available for all to read. These make it explicitly clear
that activists have a game plan for altering public opinion
through the media. Anyone reading the manuals can see at once
how successfully these tactics have been implemented.
Q. Some homosexuals have recently boasted that they control
the so-called professions of appearance--public relations,
advertising, fashion, media, interior decorating, and so on.
Do you think this boast is justified, and, if so, do you
think the fashion industry reflects the views and attitudes
homosexuals have on women and of young people?
A. Let me answer this way: A friend of mine recently self-
published an enormously successful children's book. He and
the illustrator, both devout Christians, met with groups of
potential children's books publishers in New York. But the
publishers were unaware of their religious convictions and
generally conservative leanings. They, therefore, spoke
openly of the fact that the book presented far too positive a
picture of fatherhood and the publishers made it clear they
were engaged in a subversive mission to undermine the image
of family in the psyches of children.
With respect to fashion, which always flirts with the edge
of the ``forbidden,'' there is an inevitable and not
necessarily entirely bad aspect of it which will appeal to
``gay'' sensibilities. A lot of ``gay'' literary criticism
emphasizes the inherently violative nature of the homosexual
approach to boundaries of every sort. As part of an overall
artistic world within a relatively stable culture, these
violations probably do no more than add spice to the stew in
a relatively benign way.
But in our cultural stew the base stock is almost entirely
evaporated and so the spice is now all you can taste. You
can't survive on it.
Q. To what extent is the feminist women's movement co-opted
or linked to the homosexual movement?
A. In George Orwell's 1984, one of the most shocking, and
at the time implausible, features he envisioned was the stark
separation of the sexes into two involuted and mutually
hostile camps.
[[Page E747]]
It's not that feminism has co-opted homosexuality or vice
versa; both are the inevitable consequence of a failure to
adhere to the higher vision of the union of the sexes that
lies at the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Absent
that vision, sex as a naked, despiritualized sort of pleasure
will join with the natural difference of interests between
the sexes to reinforce their opposition and thereby destroy
the family.
Feminism is not really a political movement and
homosexuality is not really about sex. They are each merely
different symptoms of the same profound spiritual malaise
which is now spreading throughout the culture.
Q. What do you think of the homosexual drive for political
``minority status,'' and is that justified?
A. No. it is not justified because homosexuality is
changeable. On the other hand, there is no question that
people who have identified themselves as homosexuals for
either all or part of their lives are subject to irrational
and vicious personal attacks. There is no place for that in
civilized society. There is a clear distinction between being
properly opposed to the gay activists agenda and being
improperly opposed to people who wrestle with their sexual
problems.
Q. Increasingly, one hears that there is not only
heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, but now we
are told that there is an ``entire spectrum of sexual
orientations.''
Does the concept ``sexual orientation'' mean anything, that
is: Is heterosexuality merely an ``orientation,'' one of
potentially many and on the same footing as others? Or is the
phrase just nonsense?
A. There is no such thing as sexual orientation of any
sort. The genetic structures that underlie human behavior
include a very complex set of physiological responses that
constitute biological sexuality. Those physiological
mechanisms can be triggered under innumerable circumstances.
The human mind, however, rooted in the brain, is subject to
an almost infinite degree of plasticity in the ways that it
will symbolize experience.
Under the right circumstances, for human beings in contrast
to animals, whose nervous systems are far more ``rigid,''
almost anything can become sexualized and therefore become a
symbolic stimulus to sexual response.
When I hear the phrase ``sexual orientation,'' I think,
``There's another `stop thought' meant to paralyze reason.''
Q. Sometimes we hear of young people being encouraged to
``dabble'' in homosexual relationships to discover their
``orientation.'' Can a person casually experiment or dabble
in homosexuality in young adult years with immunity from
psychological effects?
A. There are two issues here. First: Someone with a
relatively healthy upbringing who has not been badly hurt by
early experiences could experiment with any variant of
sexuality without its leading to a more-or-less permanent
habit of one sort or another.
However, someone whose early upbringing was filled with a
certain kind of suffering is at risk of discovering a
seemingly attractive but false form of comfort for that
suffering in various ``perverse'' forms of sexual expression.
They are at risk.
There is a larger question, one which has been almost
entirely lost from our understanding of human nature. It is a
fact that the first sexual experiences have a dramatic impact
in shaping certain expectations about what one's sexual
experience is and should be. For instance, early exposure to
pornographic images, especially if coupled with masturbation,
can diminish the capacity of an individual imperfect real
person. This can produce subtle, even imperceptible,
impediments to intimacy.
Q. How do you view the attempts of the homosexual image
creators to establish the victimhood status of homosexuals,
exemplified by the symbol of the pink triangle? Do you see
homosexuals as victims?
A. Oftentimes, homosexuals have been victims of horrific
childhood experiences. One study examined over 1,000
homosexual men and found more than 40% were subjected to
childhood sexual molestation. It is also true that people who
wrestle with homosexuality or identify themselves or are
perceived as homosexuals are treated with contempt and
cruelty.
The important thing is for the individual wrestling with
homosexuality not to become fixated on the idea of victim
status as a false compensation for what he or she really
wants: a kind of fulfillment that can only be found in deep,
rich, marital, and family intimacy.
On the political side, there is no doubt that with great
savvy and understanding of mass psychology, gay activists,
like feminist activists before them, like socialist
revolutionaries before them, and like French revolutionaries
before them, have found in the coupling of victim status to
political agitation an extremely potent instrument to disrupt
the social order.
Q. To what extent do you see homosexuality leading to
sadism and masochism, especially among younger people,
typified by piercing, tattooing, scarifying, branding, and
other acts of mutilation?
A. I wouldn't say that homosexuality per se leads to these
other things; it's that A) once certain sexual taboos are
overthrown, everything becomes permissible; and B) for those
people whose early experiences of deprivation have been
linked to much pain there can develop a progressively
worsening addiction to ever-more extreme forms of sexual
stimulation.
Such a psychological configuration is going to be found
more commonly among people who have broken sexual taboos of
any sort.
Q. Are homosexuals more inclined to engage in pedophilia
and pederasty than heterosexuals, and are lesbians prone to
that behavior?
A. Lesbians are not prone to that behavior, and are much
less prone to it than heterosexuals. Pedophilia is almost
exclusive to males. Among males, pedophilia is at least
three, and perhaps as much as 11, times more frequent among
homosexuals males than heterosexual males.
Activists correctly point out that the majority of
pedophiles are heterosexuals, but this is because homosexual
males constitute less than one thirty-third of the male
population. A recent issue of the Journal of Homosexuality,
published by prominent activist, devoted an entire issue to
the debate among gay activists as to the degree to which
pedophilia is a core component of the homosexual worldview.
Q. In your recent book, you write of the opposing views
toward homosexuality among Orthodox Jews and Christians and
liberal Jews and Christians. How do you explain the dramatic
shift in support of homosexuality within Christianity, and
especially in the Catholic Church in the United States and
Canada, as also among Reformed Jews?
A. The former is no more genuine Christianity than the
latter is genuine Judaism. Paganism has always embraced
polysexuality.
Q. What are the major implications of the homosexualists
infiltration of the churches?
A. I would view this phenomenon as a symptom rather than as
a primary event. It reveals the complete lack of confidence
in the Judeo-Christian understanding of reality.
Q. In many Catholic dioceses, pro-homosexual pastoral
ministers and others are trying to make parishes ``gay and
lesbian welcoming'' or ``inclusive.'' What effect do you
think that will have on parishioners and on Christianity in
general?
A. The whole concept of inclusivity is a bit of propaganda
right out of 1984. First, the term automatically implies
without stating so that anyone opposed to the agenda pointed
to by the word is of necessity ``exclusive.''
It destroys their faith. Because they know perfectly well,
either via ``natural law'' or via their familiarity with
Scripture, or simply through common tradition, that something
is not right in what they are being told. The only way that
they can make peace with this contradiction is either by
repudiating the false leadership or by repudiating what their
hearts tell them.
Q. What do you think will be the impact on young children
of gay and lesbian celebrations in Catholic churches, on
children who will see homosexuals and lesbians at church,
social functions, in schools, and so on?
A. Anything that normalizes homosexuality will increase
confusion about sexuality and sexual roles, will distance
future adults from the traditional model of the family, and
will increase the likelihood of vulnerable youngsters, those
of a certain kind of background, to pursue, either
temporarily or permanently, homosexual.
Q. What effect do you think AIDS education has on young
children?
A. Its chief impact is to desensitize children to
boundaries which were previously considered taboo. AIDS
education among at-risk populations has been going on for 15
years now, and yet epidemiologists have confirmed in
independent studies around the country that the incidence of
``unsafe sex'' reached a bottom about six years ago and has
been climbing steadily upward ever since.
Unsafe sexual practices were never reduced by more than
50%. This is touted as a success, but when dealing with a
fatal illness, it is actually a terrible failure.
Right now, 30% of all 20-year-old young men who consider
themselves homosexual will either be HIV positive or dead of
AIDS by the time they are 30, according to these studies. And
yet, the success rate for homosexual change--in spite of the
absence of a coordinated national effort to identify the
causes of homosexuality and to help people overcome it--is
greater than 50%. That is to say, as or more successful than
change rates produced by ``safe sex'' and AIDS education.
____________________