In an interview with Marvin Olasky for World magazine, longtime exgay movement pundit Dr. Jeffrey Satinover argues that because:
- homosexuality is not a uniform attribute across individuals,
- sexual attraction fluctuates, and
- homosexuality cannot easily be measured
therefore sexual orientation is a fiction and it is, Satinover argues, ludicrous to allow civil rights for a group of people whose condition does not exist.
Satinover asserts that some homosexuals’ attractions drift in a heterosexual direction, but does not acknowledge that the opposite also happens.
Satinover also injects his own political biases into a recollection of the American Psychiatric Association, and accuses the professional community of rampant corruption because it tolerates gay people:
The mental-health organizations have submitted briefs to courts at
every level, and have profoundly corrupted our understanding of human
sexuality tacitly via their general influence. They influence judges’
understanding before they become judges so that when a man or woman
becomes a judge he is, for all purposes, an ignoramus with respect to
homosexuality, full to the brim with sentimental platitudes.
Satinover illogically assumes that heterosexuality is "stable" whereas homosexuality is not; all homosexual persons are called "broken," while heterosexuals are not.
Considering the inflammatory tone of Satinover’s remarks about clinical professionals and the rights of gay Americans, the ensuing discussion on World magazine’s blog is remarkably civil.
(Hat tip: Dan Gonzales)
Interesting article, and interesting discussion. Since these are apparently Christian intellectuals, I did glean a few choice comments:
There is no such thing as Homosexuals. We should call them what they are: disgusting perverts.
It is not helpful for Christians to use the term sexual orientation, because it’s an attempt to make a putrid mess smell better.
After all, lesbian relationships are supposedly much more violent than either gay or straight relationships, and there are those gay paedophiles.
Natural law (proved by common sense), the socio- and psychological needs of children (proved by reputable science), the frightening health statistics on those involved in homosex (proved by statistics), and the ludicrousness of genuine fidelity in homosex relationships (again proved by statistics) all argue against homosex “acts,” “marriages,” or “unions.
If Satinover was a homosexual, his argument would be far more credible.
Sexual fluctuation is entirely possible (though I can’t prove it). A person can be attracted to different genders at different points in their life. I doubt there are many people who have a single fixed orientation for the whole of their lifetime. Why does Satinover think that heterosexuality makes the full and complete person? His bias obviously.
What’s ironic is the fact that since he thinks homosexuality isn’t measurable, it shouldn’t be a class that is granted civil rights. Yet somehow, heterosexuals are autmomatically granted all those civil rights. It would be ludicrous to refuse civil rights to people just because they were heterosexual. Since Satinover doesn’t believe in sexual orientation, heterosexuals should exist either. So why do they get civil rights?
If homosexuality “mutates” into heterosexuality, then the same could be said for the opposite, and yes there are many people who have chosen to do that. Forget the studies, forget his qualifications, forget discussing civil rights, forget mental disorders and polticial agendas. Let’s just focus on raw reality. Why must people always hide behind a facade. It’s because of that, things just never truly hit home. It’s the sole reason any of this is happening.
Sexual fluctuation is entirely possible (though I can’t prove it). A person can be attracted to different genders at different points in their life.
It is also interesting that, anecdotally of course, if there is “fluctuation” it seems to be in the homosexual, not heterosexual direction.
There are relatively few “ex-gays” – people who claim to have moved (or in most cases, are moving) from homosexuality to heterosexuality, yet a large proportion of “gay” and “lesbian” people have been in heterosexual relationships.
“What’s ironic is the fact that since he thinks homosexuality isn’t measurable, it shouldn’t be a class that is granted civil rights.”
Would Satinover extend this observation on homosexuality to religion (switch out the words)?
He’s just another bigot with an alphabet after his name.
Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Satinover have an openly gay son?
Scott, you may be thinking of Charles Socarides’ gay son Richard who was Clinton’s advisor on gay issues.
Or maybe you were thinking about Randall Terry’s son Jamiel who came out in an interview in Out magazine.
Or perhaps it’s Phyllis Schlafly’s gay son John.
It’s hard to keep them all straight, er, so to speak..
It was Socarides I believe. My mistake.
Is anyone keeping a running list of anti-gay folks who have gay kids?
Alan Keyes
Charles Socarides
Tim and Beverly LaHaye
Randall Terry
Pete Knight
Who else?
I heard rumors about T & B Lahaye. Has that ever been confirmed? And BTW, while Terry & Socarides may have problems with their gay children, last time I checked Schlafly did not treat her son terribly. They were living together and he, working for her organization — perhaps this is still occuring — even as he was an out gay man. And he stated that he supports his mother and her organization and practically everything it stands for.
Links to verifiable information about the LaHayes and Knight would be appreciated.
Otherwise, some of these comments are going to be deleted. 🙂
One of the California Knights (of the anti-gay Proposition whatever #) has a gay child, but I don’t remember details and don’t have time to run it down. That Knight father is deceased. The Knight father with the gay son is NOT the Focus on the Family Knight who currently runs their politics/social issues desk.
Pete Knight was the author of California’s prop. 22. His son penned an editorial in the LA times urging him to stop harming his family.
His son also got married in SF to his boyfriend a year ago. Pete Knight did not attend.
Lee LaHaye was outed on BlogActive a few months ago.
Can we now reasonably conclude that political and/or religious conservatism in parents causes homosexuality in children?
I just googled “Pete Knight gay son” and got a list of articles, including this one from the San Jose Mercury-News, noting that Knight’s son was part of the marriage movement in SF last year.
https://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/8145192.htm?1c
And blogactive had this on Lee LaHaye last year:
https://www.blogactive.com/2004/08/action-they-must-be-kidding-at.html
Back to Satinover’s theory. Have you heard their latest? We’re not gay… gayness doesn’t exist; we have just “failed to develop our heterosexual potential.”
Anybody else note that the RR seems recently to be trying out little sound-bites like this in order to see what gets traction?
“Failure to develop our heterosexual potential” had been a constant theme in the historical psychoanalytic explanation for homosexual origin. But most psychoanalysists have abandoned this explanation, except for a very few like Socarides and Nicolosi (I know Nicolosi’s actually a psychologist, but he’s operating more from a psychoanalytical viewpoint).
In psychoanalytical circles, this is not a soundbite so much as a quaint relic that is still promoted by a very few. But with Satinover’s et al., clinging tenatiously to it and propagating it among the laity, it indeed may be an attempt to “get traction”.
In psychoanalytical circles, this is not a soundbite so much as a quaint relic that is still promoted by a very few. But with Satinover’s et al., clinging tenatiously to it and propagating it among the laity, it indeed may be an attempt to “get traction”.
Sounds a little bit like the “cold, rejecting mother” who allegedly caused autism. Thank God we have moved from such idiocy in some quarters, at least.
Poor mothers… They’ve taken quite a lot of abuse from psychoanalysis.
Oh, but Satinover et al. blame the fathers!
Just to put things in perspective, Satinover wrote at least one book about cracking the so-called “Bible code.”
Satinover is a nut. I’m sure that he’s laughing all the way to the bank, but he’s still a nut.
Just one correction: in the interview, Satinover says “like you and me” homosexuals are broken. He follows the traditional Reformed view that all human beings are sinful and that all sexuality is broken until people are completely restored in a resurrected state.
The emphasis is on the brokenness of gay people, however, due to the nature of the interview. Whether Satinover is consistent in his theology of sexual brokenness has to be seen by his talk about straight sexuality, in other forums.
Whether Satinover is consistent in his theology of sexual brokenness has to be seen by his talk about straight sexuality, in other forums.
I’m not sure what relevance consistency is to much of anything. Consistently stupid is still stupid.
Regan,
I’m not sure, but I think Dale was merely highlighting the main points from the article in a cynical manner. I imagine he probably disagrees with most, if not all, of the conclusions drawn by Satinover.
(I must say that I did take offense at Dale’s faux slant “since there are *apparently* Christian intellectuals”, but I’ve come to expect that. I shouldn’t develop a victim mentality after all! 😀
My actual comment was: ‘Since these are apparently Christian intellectuals’ which refers to those comment on the article. I do not know anything about them beyond their comments. From which comments I concluded that these people appear to be both Christian and intellectuals. If you are going to quote me Nathan, please do so accurately. Thank you.
Regan, I was simply reporting what the commentators at this linked forum had to say. These certainly are not my comments.
I will never, never, never understand how these dorky theories about the family size or order of birth or hormone levels determine homosexuality.
Just a clarification Regan – birth order has been shown repeatedly to increase the odds of a gay son, but does not “determine” homosexuality (don’t know of any similar findings for lesbians).
Basically an eldest son has a relatively low chance of being gay. The more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. So the odds of a gay son increase with each birth. Birth order effects do NOT imply that first-born sons or only children cannot be gay – they only imply that, on average, a group of gay men are going to be later in their families’ birth orders than a comparable group of straight men.
I always find these studies fascinating, but nearly every author cautions that sexuality is much too complex to be explained by either biological or developmental theories alone.
I don’t know why the interest in birth order, whether they think it is linked to environmental issues or hormonal changes. But I know more gay men are lefties compared to the general population, they tend to be younger brothers, and now I read that we tend to read maps differently from the general population. Also, 2D:4D finger length ratios are different in many gay men.
There was even one study that claimed gay men’s penises are a quarter-inch longer on average. Right. Like I believe that one.
But these are trends, not indicators. I’m the eldest son in my family, although I’m a lefty. My youngest brother is also a lefty, but he’s straight. I have no idea what my 2D:4D ratio is – I haven’t bothered to measure. But I have concluded that not only do I throw like a girl, I read maps like one 😉
While these studies may hold a few tantalizing clues here and there, they usually have some methodological weaknesses, and in the end they don’t really explain much. But they sure are fun to read.
These studies may have their weaknesses, but I know they’re on the right track in showing a correlation between certain physical traits and sexual orienation. Biometrics certainly plays an important role in our inner gaydars. :p
Xeno,
I”ve always felt that biology plays an important role. But the way we all respond to everything around us — including biology — leads me to suspect that we may never completely untangle the whole nature vs. nurture mess.
On the other hand, what if sometime in the distant future we can untangle the multiple causes of homosexuality? We may discover flavors of homosexuality depending on the various biological causes. If so, we might learn how to categorize them into types. Maybe Gay-1 is people with prenatal hormonal influences. Maybe Gay-2 is people with genetic differences, etc.
If that happens, then you’ll see the ex-gay movement move quickly past quack psychology and into other avenues to “cure” homosexuality.
Or, maybe someday we’ll discover what causes heterosexuality instead. 😉
Jim,
All studies of this sort are basically of the same ilk – they tend to show population differences, but are not necessarily applicable to individuals.
For instance, men on average are taller than women, but not every man is taller than every woman. The bell curve on height for men is simply shifted to the right of the curve for women. Nevertheless, such studies can point to biological causes for the differences in height.
In the same way gay men are more likely to be younger brothers, have index and ring fingers of approximately the same size, and be left handed. Even though this does not mean that each gay man has all these characteristics (personally, I am the first born son but second child, have “gay hands” and am ambidextrous) the population differences can still point to the potential biological determinants (biological can be either environment or genetics) that contribute to homosexuality. The same hormonal changes that “feminize” the gay male brain may also contribute to the other differences.
For example, according to a documentary I saw, the reason that dogs have more varied sizes, colors and physical characteristics than wolves appears to be simply because of different levels of adreneline in the two species. Wolves have high levels of adreneline so they run from humans. Dogs have lower levels, which makes them more docile and more likely to bond with humans. The theory is that dogs developed when wolves who were less likely to run from humans (e.g., had lower levels of adreneline than normal) were attracted to the garbage that inevitably follows humans, and over time humans domesticated and then bred for tameness. The resultant lower levels of adreniline allowed the varied physical characteristics of dogs to emerge (they had been repressed by adreneline).
In the same way, it has been theorized that androgen, which tends to build up in women as they have more sons, can trigger the gay gene(s) to feminize the brain – which can result in more feminine hands, for example. That same androgen may create more left-handed people, hence the reportedly 3X higher ratio of lefties in gay populations.
I find all this fascinating because I work in health care, and the more we look at the interactions of genetics and environment, the more reasons for disease and physical characteristics are found. For example, the prevailing theory is that a virus, caught as an infant, changes the brain enough to create schizophrenia in early adulthood (15 – 25 years after the virus was caught). This explains the earlier findings that people born in cold months (when you are in closer contact with others and more likely to catch viruses) are more likely to be schizophrenic.
I too find it all very fascinating. I hadn’t had a chance to look into the younger-brother studies to see what the link was believed to be (Anderogen).
And while this is OT, I am also very interested in reading about schizophrenia. My best friend from elementary school exhibited symptoms while we were freshmen in High School, although he wasn’t diagnosed until he was well into his twenties. This was in the early 1980’s when he was finally diagnosed.
The diagnosis was a relief. But until then the counselling he went through was very destructive for everyone involved, what with all of the theories about whether his mother was too coddling or too distant, whether his father was too harsh or too forgiving, whether he was gay or not, using drugs, being the youngest son, being practically the only son (his brothers were grown) and I don’t know how many other stigmatizing theories. And then finally counselling ended when Joe was deemed “uncooperative” because the more they dug, the worse he got. Joe had to be lying.
So if anybody detects a strong bias on my part against the “science” of psychoanalysis, now you know why.
And to go back on topic, this is also why I have such a strong condemnation for the ex-gay therapy quacks. Questions of ethics are serious enough, whether homosexuality should be “treated” or not. But I have seen first hand how quacks like these do real damage to healthy and sick people alike, and that damage extends to their families as well.
I’ll have to admit that it is impossible for me to be impartial or “fair” when it comes to psychoanalysis. Joe’s parents deserved much better and so did he. It literally causes my stomach to churn just thinking about it.
Interestingly, Jim, your comment actually came around to being very much on-target. The biggest revolution in the last 40 years in psychiatry has been the biological revolution, and the resultant throwing out, by most psychological medicine experts, of the old “mommy made me do it” Freudian theories. Until the neurological basis of many mental illnesses were found, it was widely believed, particularly among psychoanalytic experts, that parental influences were the cause of all mental illness. That is where the “cold, rejecting mother” as the cause of autism also comes from.
Now we know that bipolar disorder (manic depression), major depression, schizophrenia, autism, even sociopathology are all rooted in neurological defects. They can be exaccerbated, and triggered, by life events, including parenting, but the underlying vulnerability is biological, if not genetic.
It is this, more than anything, that has helped reduce the stigma of mental illness, and is the key reason by the “reparative therapy” theories seem antiquated. They are rooted in the old model, not a biological one, because a biological cause for homosexuality would destroy the foundations of the “science” of treating gays.
“They are rooted in the old model, not a biological one, because a biological cause for homosexuality would destroy the foundations of the “science” of treating gays.”
Many of the psychological theories allow for biological influence, though not in as direct a way as some may like. We STILL have insufficient evidence, in my opinion, for a direct biological/genetic cause of the development of same-sex attractions. Also, even the stranger psychoanalytical ideas appeal to clients because sexual attraction at least SEEMS very multi-layered when it comes to erotic association, fetishes and self-esteem.