Saturday, August 04, 2007

Dr. Satinover Exposes Big Lies

Just came across this interview with Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (from World Magazine, 2005), "From mental disorder to civil-rights cause; Psychiatrist and Princeton law professor traces the advances of the gay-rights agenda in science and the law to a common source: political intimidation." Satinover is a practicing psychiatrist and author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. He has degrees from Harvard, Yale, and Univ. of Texas Medical School, and has taught civil liberties and constitutional law at Princeton.

This interview summarizes the Big Lies the homosexual movement is using to bowl over legislators, judges, voters, corporations, schools, parents, and of course children. Big Lies:

  • homosexual behavior stems from an inborn "sexual orientation" which does not change;
  • homosexuality was legitimately removed from the American Psychiatric Association manual of mental disorders;
  • homosexuality is a stable, measurable trait that defines a certain class of people, so they can claim "civil rights" based on that trait
(Note that the first and third lie are now being applied even more absurdly to "transgenders" -- and activists are trying to have "gender identity dysphoria" removed from the APA list of mental disorders.)

[Excerpt:] Satinover: 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.

These platitudinous outlooks "feel" deep, but are astoundingly shallow (the concept "sexual orientation" is an example-it is a "stopthought" that won't bear five minutes of serious scrutiny before dissolving into a welter of contradiction). But when a judge is handed an amicus brief that bears at its end a list of say five or 10 well-respected national or state mental-health professional organizations -- he's impressed. Then he starts reading, and it's "The Emperor's New Robes." In learned-sounding terms, he's fed back all the nice-sounding pieties with which he's become familiar and comfortable. He doesn't have to stop and think for a second. He just has to be "nice."

So, over the years, the concept of "sexual orientation" has worked its way into the culture and up the court system to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court and in certain key state Supreme Court cases, especially in the Goodrich [sic; i.e. Goodridge] case in Massachusetts. The key U.S. Supreme Court cases are Romer and Lawrence. Leaving specific variations aside, all three approach homosexuality from the point of view of civil liberties -- a misframing that goes all the way back to Hooker and the history I've mentioned. It has been critical for the mental-health guilds to stand before the courts and say, "You see, your honors, we in particular, who are the very experts of what constitutes a mental disorder, proclaim that sexual orientation should not be discussed as a condition that is problematic and changeable, it is a normal and immutable state of the human being and therefore should be discussed in civil-rights terms, like race." ...

What you're left with are human beings, no different than you or me, who are, of course, sexual beings. Like you and me, their sexuality is broken in a broken world. The notion that "homosexuals" are in effect a "different species" (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows. Of course as one grows and changes, one "grooves" a pathway that becomes embedded and increasingly difficult to alter. Of course a different innate disposition places one at a different "risk profile" for all sorts of different paths in life. So what else is new? It is also true that people do sometimes want to change, and some do and some don't. This is true of everything. It's also true that few good things in life are easy, and no achievement is ever perfect.

That said, we should remember that homosexuality has risen to the top of the social-policy agenda because of the utter wreck we all have made of family life over the past 50 years. This horror cannot be blamed on anyone but us.

[Read the entire interview . . .]