[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.

                          ____________________