Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. 1947-
ISBN 0-8010-5625-X (pbk.)
Read 2002 August 5 – 26
Reviewed 2002 August 28
For some reason, I have always had more than average interest in the issue of homosexuality within our culture. Perhaps this stems from the many gay acquaintances and some gay friends IÕve accumulated through my music career. Perhaps itÕs something more, I donÕt know, but IÕve ended up talking about this with former Baylor classmates at more length than is reasonable and, when Pasadena Covenant Church had a PastorÕs Forum on the issue, I was more interested and less preemptively judgmental than, I would say, most of the rest of the congregation.
This level of interest is not, however, what brings me to this book at this time. I am brought to this difficult subject and this difficult text by my relationship with my oldest daughter, Viannah. For a couple of years she has been entertaining pre-dating and dating relationships with both boys and girls. For much of that time she has been in therapy for seemingly unrelated symptoms. One diagnosis of the therapist is that Viannah struggles with her sexual orientation and her parentÕs response to it. This book was the offering on the subject by the FriesenÕs, leaders of Family Camp at Campus By The Sea this year, and I incorporated it into both struggles, the one within myself and the one concerning my relationship with my daughter and the rest of the family.
Satinover is scientifically and philosophically rigorous, as much as is possible on this subject, and is a firm but gentle critic of homosexual activism. He does not believe that homosexuality, or other deviant forms of sexuality, are just another expression of normalcy, nor should they be, but on the other hand he is not pounding a Bible and screaming irrationally about everybody elseÕs sins either.
I have commented extensively in the margins and the book itself is heavily documented. References consume about 10% of the nearly 300 pages.
Beginning at camp and ending this week, just before school starts for the fall, I have read through and now my task is to summarize my own thoughts on the issue, particularly with respect to my own personal and family matters. I will then pass the book to Viannah who will read it as well (exchanging for Tolerance) and our deal is that, at the end of our discussions, we will be able to state each others position from beginning to end, whether we agree on each otherÕs principles, propositions and logic or not. I plan to spend considerable time in prayer as well.
It has been a painful process to have a light of truth shown on my own drifting standards and beliefs, to see just where certain societal forces have arisen and have influenced others and me. After reading through this text, my views are re-focused somewhat. For a while, indeed, I was seeing snatches of clarity. One thing is clear; the issues here are much larger than just the topic of homosexuality, homosexual practices and their influence on society and the solutions are more than just maintenance of order in culture.
Satinover divides his treatise into two parts. They could be called ÒScienceÓ and ÒMorality.Ó This is necessary since science is reductionist and presumes causality throughout its investigation. Applying this to people, people are just machines which respond to their programming and external conditions. Whatever they are, they behave on that basis. He argues that there is more to people than just their chemical or physical properties and Pavlovian responses to their world; that they are also free spiritual agents, capable of choice. Science is, however, unable to determine, define, or clarify morality from its reductionist approach, virtually by definition of the method. This is, rather, the domain of faith. In the second half of the book, then, he delineates the traditions and stances of faiths, Jewish, Christian, Secular, and Pagan.
The first half therefore becomes a rather dry read inasmuch as it is a very specific and rational treatment of the scientific evidence we now have concerning the origins of homosexuality. This dry discussion is, however, introduced by a hair-raising account of the many diseases and other medical conditions, some of which are reaching epidemic proportions, which result from or are spread by un-natural sexual practices (of which homosexuality of both male and female types are just two). Satinover claims, probably correctly, that nearly any other condition so endemic in society that could be treated by behavioral changes would be but in this case, an activist movement exists which will ignore facts or even lie about data in order to preserve the highest possible degree of Òsexual freedom.Ó
Ignorance is one thing and tolerance is another, but when people start outright lying about their research in the name of science because their cause is more important than the truth, I am offended.
There are many possible explanations for homosexuality, which occurs in 2.8% of the male population and 1.4% of the female population in the U.S. Some recent emphasis has been given to the concept of a Ògay geneÓ which Satinover roundly refutes, using the same research as the theoryÕs proponents. The data comes from ÒtwinÓ and ÒsiblingÓ studies that are voluntary and difficult to control. It is also difficult to separate environmental and intrauterine effects from genetic ones. The most damning problem with all the data to date is that there is very little of it, far short of an amount that would have statistical relevance and, even if there were, the conclusion that there may be a strictly genetic influence in the determination of gayness is not supported by what data that there is.
Meanwhile, activists use aggressive techniques like intimidation and Mein Kampf like tactics to spread their ideas that it is all-natural and everything that occurs ought to be acceptable and to marginalize anyone who might disagree for whatever reason.
There are other possible natural explanations that involve hormonal development in-utero, influences such as the relationship (if any) with the same sex or opposite sex parent and tendencies that are not mainstream such as sensitivity or artistic-ness in boys.
In terms of sexuality, the population physically divides fairly strictly into male and female (with rare exceptions such as trans-gendered individuals) but in terms of brain structure and ways of thinking, the boundaries are much more vague and less clear. There are, in the extreme, many women with more masculine personalities than the average man and also the converse, many men with more feminine personalities than the average woman. This, it appears to me, is the place for tolerance. Not all women want to be playing with dolls nor do all men want to be tossing around footballs and tackling each other. Interestingly, however, cross-gender ÒtendenciesÓ do not predict homosexuality statistically. Something else seems to be going on. The fact that there is much more hormonal differentiation between males and females than between gays and straights is also an interesting indicator against solely hereditary or natural causes
Satinover finds that much, perhaps the preponderance of male homosexual behavior would be classified as compulsive or even addictive in the main stream psychiatric establishment were it not for the strident activism (inventing such unsubstantiated concepts as Òhomo-phobiaÓ) to the contrary.
He does not deal with female homosexuality except parenthetically, for instance, to note that in Jewish mores, it is a lesser evil.
The nature of a compulsion then an addiction is that the victim falls into behavior that is temporarily pleasurable and releasing in order to get away from the true spiritual pain of life. He will sometimes do this more and more until he has lost control of his ability to choose for or against the behavior, despite its negative spiritual and physical consequences and despite the fact that, particularly in the hangover stage, he would like to extract himself from the destructive cycle. In this sense, homosexuality (at least most of the cases) is much like alcoholism. Things are made worse, both to the individual and their society, by the fact that male-to-male sexual relationships can be much quicker and numerous and less attachment oriented.
I must admit that, following a clear, straight reading of Romans 1, I find I am unable to be very condemning of people in or near such compulsions inasmuch as I recognize, in moments of greater clarity, much such potential and practice in my own life and habits. I would not want a monkey like that on my back that was so strong that I needed social help to get extracted from it. Further, I agree with the self-assessment of most homosexuals that their inclination is not simply a choice or set of choices that they can freely make.
I find it much easier to be condemning of people who have allowed their desire not to remove themselves from a destructive cycle to lead them into lying about data, basis statistics and logic. This is certainly offensive scientifically and also spiritually.
In the spiritual half of the book, Satinover discusses treatment programs, philosophy, and theology. First there is the problem of getting anybody to admit that there is something to treat. Activists would have society believe, without any debate or discussion of any evidence, that homosexuality, and perhaps later when more ÒprogressÓ has been made, bestiality, pedophilia, and so forth, are normal expressions of human sexuality that should not be constrained or hindered in any way. The American Psychological Association stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder or disease in 1973 and since then it has progressively become as unacceptable to treat or discuss homosexuality as anything other than totally normal as it is to discuss racial differences as abnormal. Anyone who would join a debate on the other side is immediately labeled as a ÒhomophobeÓ and anyone who is homosexual and wants to change is only Òstruggling with their own internalized homophobiaÓ. There is no researched psychiatric basis for these concepts, only acceptance due to compliance with the hysteria.
I do not buy the labeling of 98% of the population as ÒhomophobicÓ just because they donÕt instinctively or intellectually want to accept unconstrained-sex behaviors as Ònormal.Ó Specifically, I would label myself as Òmurderer-phobicÓ and Òrapist-phobicÓ but I am not Òhomo-phobicÓ despite the fact that I disagree with the unproven philosophical underpinnings (such as they are) of the movement. Similarly, I am not Òalcoholic-phobicÓ but am certainly Òdrunk-driver-phobic.Ó I have resumed thinking of aberrant sexual behaviors as being similar to alcoholism and admit that there are many exceptional cases of non-heterosexual or extra-marital sexual behaviors being something other than compulsive or addictive, but that these are probably in such small proportion to the preponderance of activity that the movement would have us all accept without question that they are more appropriate for psychiatric specialization rather than a general public debate.
There are some, however, who desire treatment for their homosexuality. They feel that, if possible, they would like to leave the lifestyle rather than being counseled that it is all OK and they should just deal with their internalized homo-phobia.
Secular treatments, Satinover claims, are largely ineffective, more than 99% so and this, plus some of the rather aggressive tactics of treatment programs, leave the treatment establishment open to attack and abuse by gay activists (the same people, recall, who would not even have a discussion about whether treatment is relevant to the ÒconditionÓ).
Treatment programs with a spiritual basis, parallel to twelve step and Alcoholics Anonymous, approaches that admit the need for a higher authority, are comparatively successful, more like 30% with some claiming even more. In neither case is the treatment path easy or irreversible but there is certainly documented and repeatable success.
An intriguing accidental result (discussed in the scientific section) is that some people who were comfortably homosexual and did not want to change, under medication for other, seemingly unrelated, psychiatric problems, would change their sexual orientation unexpectedly and spontaneously. Satinover calls for renewed investigation into treatments for this condition, including pharmaceutical, for those who desire them.
There is homosexuality among Jews as well, but the Jewish establishment does not have treatment programs. What they do have is a statement that their community is based on the Law and, as such, is a good example to all and that it is unacceptable to flout that Law in any way (homosexuality or otherwise) from within the community just due to personal instincts or preferences.
Jewish tradition is based on the Law and Prophets (the Christian Old Testament, roughly) and the Talmud, an ancient commentary, traditionally given orally at Mt. Sinai, expansion and elucidation on the Law. I find the notion of better explanation of the law, as in the Talmud, fascinating and appealing. These interpretations as presented here lend some interesting insight into the issues of sexuality. Sexual sins are not considered as bad as the sin of being hostile to another person due to sexual differences, for example. In this standard, it is recognized that there are hereditary or environmental factors that affect sexuality but that it is a freer choice to be unloving and therefore a worse one to make.
WeÕre speaking of Orthodox Jews and Christians here, those who are concerned with what they see as GodÕs law brought forward through thousands of years, not the more progressive denominations of each which are well compromised into modernity.
This brings us to the last point of the book that is dealt with in the last chapter, the ancient and ongoing battle between Paganism and the monotheistic Jewish and Christian faiths. Satinover lists the principle bases and differences between the two, pointing out that Paganism is mystical and inegalitarian and ultimately results in the unconstrained excesses in human nature, particularly hedonistic, aggressive and orgiastic while the Judeo-Christian traditions move away from these excesses through divinely empowered constraint moving towards a higher and better calling.
The final chapter goes on with a discussion of the compromises between the opposing worldviews that are manifest in our spiritually deprived modern world, the work of Freud and Jung, and so forth.
To me, it is obvious that a life of discipline and appropriate restraint which carefully circumscribes and thus sanctifies the basic human impulses (aggression, hedonism, orgasm) is clearly easier, preferable, and safer than a life free of constraint. It is easier for the individual and for the society. This is what God calls us to and wishes for us and, to the extent that society through leftover morality or fresh inspiration follows God in the higher way, the world is a better place. God, however, does not force the higher way on anybody. He allows everyone to freely choose their path, as far as they can go without falling into the slavery of corruption, anyway. If you think about it, this is the only way that God can be called Ògood.Ó
Still, I will never understand everything well enough to develop a consistent philosophy or theology on my own, thus I must choose on faith to adopt another with centuries of intelligence and inspiration behind it. To me, a choice for health and stability is preferable to one which appears freer in the immediate but that inevitably leads to destruction. The latter is simple rebellion that is as old as the world itself.
It is true that institutions of religion leave much to be desired, are abused and abusive and are often as corrupt as other institutions. This has left me with much baggage with respect to my own faith yet I have been able to make a distinction between my faith and the institutions of my faith. My calling now is to learn to live with, and love, those with whom I disagree, no matter how major or minor the disagreement. On just a little thought, this amounts to ÒeverybodyÓ, so it is a good and appropriate calling. It is not, however, ÒtoleranceÓ, but leadership and a type of leadership which is difficult for me.