As the newscasters and pundits and talk show hosts get ready to give their mouths a post-election vacation (unless this drags on for a month like it did in 2000) your ol’ pal, Bob is going to distill it all down in a quick review that will take only minutes to read. Why do I do this for you?  Because that’s just the kind of guy I am.

The Debates Between the Candidates

OBAMA: I will bring about change.

McCAIN: You’ll bring change? I’m the maverick!

PALIN: Yes… He’s the maverick!

BIDEN: Let’s just get this straight once and for all. McCain is no maverick!

Man, oh man!  Our country is still recovering from the depth of discussion showered upon us from those brilliant exchanges.

The Debates Between the Voters

DEMOCRAT: Why are you voting for McCain?

REPUBLICAN: I’m not voting for McCain. I’m voting for Palin!

DEMOCRAT: No!  You are voting against Obama.

REPUBLICAN: Oh yeah! That too.

DEMOCRAT: Admit it. You don’t want to vote for him, because he’s black.

REPUBLICAN: No, I don’t want to vote for him because he dedicated his own book to a racist, wrote a book review for a terrorist, and toasted a Palestinian who talked about the death of Israel. He also voted against a law that would have stopped infanticide in a hospital. Oh wait. He promised to bankrupt coal workers and tax the rich. He defines rich as “anyone who works.”  Oh…One more thing: He wants to pass Hate Speech Legislation which means that after he gets elected, anyone who speaks against him will be accused of racism. As for the poor chump who dares to ask him a question beyond the border of talking points? I have just three words: Joe the Plumber!

INDEPENDENT: I think you are both biased. For me, I always wait until the end to see who I will vote for and I base it upon objective, intellectual, independent thought.

REPUBLICAN: Such as?

INDEPENDENT:  Well, for instance, in the three debates, McCain frowned too much. He also looked old. Obama looked young. And Obama sounded presidential. I’m glad I was wise enough to reserve my judgment until this sound criteria came forth.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also by Bob Siegel:

Yes, Obama Really Was Anointed. Let Me Tell You What I Mean.

The fifty million dollar question thrown at conservatives these days has to do with gay marriage: “How exactly does it hurt your marriage or your family if two gay people get married?”

On its surface this would seem to be a fair question. Does another person’s marriage have any direct connection to your own?  Of course not. But I think we are missing a much bigger point. As Americans, our lives, our marriages and our families, do not exist in isolation. We are profoundly influenced by the direction of society as a whole. As a pastor, I have counseled many gays and I am sympathetic to their plight. Of course, I can understand their desire to be married and happy like every one else. At the same time, I would be lying if I said that gay marriage does not affect the rest of us. The truth is, one can list many such effects and I will do so right now:

1) THE EFFECT ON YOUR CHILDREN

Even if your children live in a stable, two parent, heterosexual home, you are only one of  many influences in your child’s life.  Homosexuality is being presented today as an alternative lifestyle, even at the kindergarten level!  Books such as, Heather Has Two Mommies are being read to your child at school. In fact, a recent California ruling now forbids the words father and mother in public schools out of respect for gay and transgender families. It is also against the law for any government institution in California to speak negatively of gays.  Although a good deal of this stuff was already going on, the recent court ruling of gay marriage in California gives the militant gay agenda a whole new set of teeth. Please do not try to tell me that these developments will not be affecting your child directly.

2) THE EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN:

For years we have admitted, as a society, that children are better off in a two-parent home. Yes, there are loving single parents who have done a wonderful job. And yes, there are unhealthy dysfunctional two parent families. But pointing out exceptions to the rule, ignores this giant rule staring us in the face. Ideally, children need a healthy father and a healthy mother. They need both, because men and women are different and each gender has different things to offer in a child’s upbringing. We used to feel free to admit this rather obvious truth. But we have gotten so used to rolling over and playing dead for the militant gay activists, we now try to shove truth under the rug. The more children are raised by fathers and mothers together, the better we will all be as a society. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. Studies on ancient Rome and other cultures show that when the family breaks down, the entire country breaks down. So once again, I would say that gay marriage will have a rather large influence upon our joint future as Americans.

3) THE LEGAL EFFECT:

If I thought for one moment that legalized gay marriage would end this matter, I would have less of a problem with it. If I thought the militant gay community would now be satisfied and view things as square, if they could finally admit that they are no longer a persecuted minority and their plight is over, perhaps gay marriage would be something we could all live with.  I would still be concerned, but I could live with it. Unfortunately, the militant gay movement has no such intention and this latest “right” is only a small part of a much bigger agenda. 

Now, I do draw a distinction between most homosexuals who want to just be left alone and the militant gay agenda, which claims to speak for the majority. Despite my sympathy to the former, unfortunately, it is the militant gays whom we are being forced to deal with. Let’s be honest: The real militant gay agenda is to someday make it against the law to say that homosexuality is wrong. Oh, they’re smart enough to chip away at it one inch at a time because they know what a stupid country we have become and what a naïve people we have become, but make no mistake; the instigation of Thought Police is the true agenda.  As a matter of fact, that agenda was shamelessly written by Marshal Kirk and Hunger Madsen, as a manifesto back in the late 1980’s.   It was called, After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s. 

This manifesto was an open, strategic mission to launch a patient and persistent legal and media movement whose goal was to silence anti-homosexual speech. The strategy included loveable gay characters on sitcoms who encounter “old fashioned, narrow minded friends.”  But this was only the beginning. In the midst of debates, the soldiers of this cause were to portray anyone who disagreed with homosexuality as some kind of hate monger, even those whom they knew had a love for gays but merely disagreed with the lifestyle.

“Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infra logical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process.  In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality" (pg 152-153 )

But calling someone a “homophobe” or “ hate filled” does not go far enough today.  After achieving the goals of  guilt and “greater sensitivity”, the militant gays are trying their hand at actual speech legislation.  Such legislation has already passed in Canada.  Now they’re trying to jam it through in the United States under the guise of Hate Crime.  Since violent crimes are already crimes, judging motives such as “hate” really makes Hate Crime Law, Hate Speech Law.  Saying that you love the homosexual but simply disapprove of his actions isn’t enough. You will still be branded as hateful and this will be in the name of tolerance. Christians and other conservatives must be tolerant of the opinion that homosexuality is natural.   Of course, homosexuals need not be tolerant of the fact that we might have another point of view.

The recent ruling in California is bound to open up a Pandora’s Box full of litigation. I am just waiting for pastors to be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. Supposedly, there is this thing called “separation between church and state” that the Left likes to keep ringing in our ears. But the separation never seems to work both ways, does it? We hear all the time about how the church must never interfere with the state. But supposedly this “separated state” is allowed to interfere with the church if the church holds a viewpoint it doesn’t like. Already, a Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a gay couple to get have a civic untion ceremony on their property. They lost the case and lost their tax exemption.  They don’t even have legal gay marriage in New Jersey. Can you just imagine what’s going to start happening in California? 

4) THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT

Since homosexuality is emotionally unstable and psychologically abnormal, exposing kids to the lie that it is natural, harms the child’s  healthy development. If this is true of the children being indoctrinated from kindergarten on up, one can only imagine the confusion passed on to children being raised by gay couples. I do not suggest that gay couples are unloving. I merely point out the dysfuntionality.

I know! The fat is in the fire now! Somebody had to say it! It might as well be me. Too many conservatives dance around this issue. They are willing to call gay marriage wrong but they are unwilling to call homosexuality itself wrong. Well, let’s be clear. If there is nothing wrong with being gay then there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and gay people make good sense when they point that out.  Unfortunately, it begs the more obvious question: Is there indeed something wrong with homosexuality?  Yes there is.  It causes psychological harm.  I do not say this to sound condemning or to make anyone feel unwarranted guilt, but the truth is, people are involving themselves in a process that is unnatural.  This was the widespread teaching of the American Psychiatric Association prior to the year 1973.  Many people are unaware of the circumstances which led to homosexuality being declassified as an emotional disorder by the APA.  You may never have heard about the pressure from gay activists and gay psychiatrists who were involved in the meetings.  You should know that the discussions leading to the vote were not characterized with scholarly study but rather a great deal of fear.  In fact, so extended was the pressure, that only one third of the ballots sent out were ever returned.  Out of those returned, only 58 percent agreed to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Get that?  58 percent out of the one third returned or about 19 percent overall!

Prior to this time, homosexuals not only sought help from psychologists but also received healing.  Dr. Charles Socarides, who had successfully treated gays for more than 20 years ,said that the militant gay movement was responsible for “the greatest medical hoax of the century.” ¹

Although  many gay people sincerely claim that they cannot remember a time when they weren’t attracted to the same sex, that does not necessarily mean they were born homosexuals.  Elizabeth Moberly, a research Psychologist for Oxford and Cambridge, explains this by pointing out that people absorb their key influences of sexual orientation between the ages of 2 and 5, a time in life most of us would not remember anyway.²

Even molecular biologist, Dean Hammer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed one of the famous studies which sought to find genetic explanations, said, “Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psycho-social factors.” ³

It may someday be discovered that there are two types of homosexuality, a learned behavior and a genetic predisposition.  In either case, the homosexual in all likelihood did not choose his/her sexual orientation and should not be blamed for inward feelings or impulses.  Likewise, in either case, the acting out of such impulses would still be unnatural behavior.  It is believed that one can be born with a predisposition toward alcoholism too, but we would not encourage an alcoholic to drink.

“If homosexuality is really so unnatural how come most people don’t view it that way?”

Actually, I am convinced that most people do.  They have trouble admitting this because of today’s political climate which has been growing now for over three decades.

I went to high school in the early seventies coming out of a home so sheltered that for years I had never even heard of homosexuality.  When I discovered that certain fellow actors in my High School drama department were gay, my initial response was one of repulsion despite the fact that they were very nice people.  Of course, in a theater atmosphere people quickly learn to dismiss such feelings as rigid and old fashioned.  So, in no time at all I decided that varying sexual  lifestyles must be respected.  There was no room for judgment and back woods thinking.  In hindsight, it is interesting to note that my first reaction had nothing to do with the Bible because I wasn’t even a Christian or Bible believer at the time.  I was merely making a simple, obvious observation that men were meant for women and vice-versa.  Still, in time, it was easier to accept the idea that my feelings were outdated than to consider the possibility that the majority opinion may be mistaken. 

But what does the majority really think?  That is the interesting question.  Have you ever seen a sitcom where two men danced or one man accidentally kissed another?  We see it all the time.  It’s a common device and we laugh all the time.  It’s an easy guaranteed laugh.  Consider the finale of Cheers.  Two gay lovers were in the middle of a quarrel when one pleaded with his partner calling him by the pet name “Muffin”.  The audience laughed hysterically and I'm sure the producers felt that this was a very progressive episode because of a willingness to portray gay romance as normal.  One question:  Why did people laugh?  Why did the writers obviously intend for people to laugh?  What is funny about a man calling his lover “Muffin”?  If indeed we recognize the normality of that relationship, what exactly strikes us as humorous?

Centuries ago, Hans Christian Anderson illustrated the value of a simple childlike mind.  Remember his story of The Emperor's New Clothes?  A charlatan tailor, wanting to rook the king of a fortune, fashioned him a set of “fine apparel.”  There was one stipulation;  Only intelligent people could see these clothes.  Of course, the clothes didn't really exist, so nobody ever really saw them.  But nobody wanted to be viewed as unintelligent either. “If I can't see the clothes” one reasoned to himself,  “the problem must be with me.  After all, every one else sees them.”

You remember the rest.  At a grand parade, one small child tugged his mother's skirt and said,  “But Mommie, he's not wearing any clothes.”

Nakedness was once nakedness.  Now, as the result of one clever tailor, the word “naked” in relation to the king was politically incorrect.

Could this same tailor have visited the United States?  Maybe what we need today is an innocent child, like the one in the fairy tale; some red faced, nose running kid, who hasn't studied genetics, hasn't studied psychology, hasn't studied scripture and hasn't had sensitivity training.  All he knows is what he sees and feels. Maybe if something looks unnatural it is unnatural.  Maybe we all know the truth and are afraid to admit it.  Maybe the king isn't wearing any clothes.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

NOTE: For a further and fuller discussion of this topic, see my book, I’d Like To Believe In Jesus, But…Chapter Four: "Why Does the Bible Call Certain Practices Sinful?"

The fifty million dollar question thrown at conservatives these days has to do with gay marriage: “How exactly does it hurt your marriage or your family if two gay people get married?”

On its surface this would seem to be a fair question. Does another person’s marriage have any direct connection to your own?  Of course not. But I think we are missing a much bigger point. As Americans, our lives, our marriages and our families, do not exist in isolation. We are profoundly influenced by the direction of society as a whole. As a pastor, I have counseled many gays and I am sympathetic to their plight. Of course, I can understand their desire to be married and happy like every one else. At the same time, I would be lying if I said that gay marriage does not affect the rest of us. The truth is, one can list many such effects and I will do so right now:

1) THE EFFECT ON YOUR CHILDREN

Even if your children live in a stable, two parent, heterosexual home, you are only one of  many influences in your child’s life.  Homosexuality is being presented today as an alternative lifestyle, even at the kindergarten level!  Books such as, Heather Has Two Mommies are being read to your child at school. In fact, a recent California ruling now forbids the words father and mother in public schools out of respect for gay and transgender families. It is also against the law for any government institution in California to speak negatively of gays.  Although a good deal of this stuff was already going on, the recent court ruling of gay marriage in California gives the militant gay agenda a whole new set of teeth. Please do not try to tell me that these developments will not be affecting your child directly.

2) THE EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN:

For years we have admitted, as a society, that children are better off in a two-parent home. Yes, there are loving single parents who have done a wonderful job. And yes, there are unhealthy dysfunctional two parent families. But pointing out exceptions to the rule, ignores this giant rule staring us in the face. Ideally, children need a healthy father and a healthy mother. They need both, because men and women are different and each gender has different things to offer in a child’s upbringing. We used to feel free to admit this rather obvious truth. But we have gotten so used to rolling over and playing dead for the militant gay activists, we now try to shove truth under the rug. The more children are raised by fathers and mothers together, the better we will all be as a society. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. Studies on ancient Rome and other cultures show that when the family breaks down, the entire country breaks down. So once again, I would say that gay marriage will have a rather large influence upon our joint future as Americans.

3) THE LEGAL EFFECT:

If I thought for one moment that legalized gay marriage would end this matter, I would have less of a problem with it. If I thought the militant gay community would now be satisfied and view things as square, if they could finally admit that they are no longer a persecuted minority and their plight is over, perhaps gay marriage would be something we could all live with.  I would still be concerned, but I could live with it. Unfortunately, the militant gay movement has no such intention and this latest “right” is only a small part of a much bigger agenda. 

Now, I do draw a distinction between most homosexuals who want to just be left alone and the militant gay agenda, which claims to speak for the majority. Despite my sympathy to the former, unfortunately, it is the militant gays whom we are being forced to deal with. Let’s be honest: The real militant gay agenda is to someday make it against the law to say that homosexuality is wrong. Oh, they’re smart enough to chip away at it one inch at a time because they know what a stupid country we have become and what a naïve people we have become, but make no mistake; the instigation of Thought Police is the true agenda.  As a matter of fact, that agenda was shamelessly written by Marshal Kirk and Hunger Madsen, as a manifesto back in the late 1980’s.   It was called, After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s. 

This manifesto was an open, strategic mission to launch a patient and persistent legal and media movement whose goal was to silence anti-homosexual speech. The strategy included loveable gay characters on sitcoms who encounter “old fashioned, narrow minded friends.”  But this was only the beginning. In the midst of debates, the soldiers of this cause were to portray anyone who disagreed with homosexuality as some kind of hate monger, even those whom they knew had a love for gays but merely disagreed with the lifestyle.

“Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infra logical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process.  In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality" (pg 152-153 )

But calling someone a “homophobe” or “ hate filled” does not go far enough today.  After achieving the goals of  guilt and “greater sensitivity”, the militant gays are trying their hand at actual speech legislation.  Such legislation has already passed in Canada.  Now they’re trying to jam it through in the United States under the guise of Hate Crime.  Since violent crimes are already crimes, judging motives such as “hate” really makes Hate Crime Law, Hate Speech Law.  Saying that you love the homosexual but simply disapprove of his actions isn’t enough. You will still be branded as hateful and this will be in the name of tolerance. Christians and other conservatives must be tolerant of the opinion that homosexuality is natural.   Of course, homosexuals need not be tolerant of the fact that we might have another point of view.

The recent ruling in California is bound to open up a Pandora’s Box full of litigation. I am just waiting for pastors to be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. Supposedly, there is this thing called “separation between church and state” that the Left likes to keep ringing in our ears. But the separation never seems to work both ways, does it? We hear all the time about how the church must never interfere with the state. But supposedly this “separated state” is allowed to interfere with the church if the church holds a viewpoint it doesn’t like. Already, a Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a gay couple to get have a civic untion ceremony on their property. They lost the case and lost their tax exemption.  They don’t even have legal gay marriage in New Jersey. Can you just imagine what’s going to start happening in California? 

4) THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT

Since homosexuality is emotionally unstable and psychologically abnormal, exposing kids to the lie that it is natural, harms the child’s  healthy development. If this is true of the children being indoctrinated from kindergarten on up, one can only imagine the confusion passed on to children being raised by gay couples. I do not suggest that gay couples are unloving. I merely point out the dysfuntionality.

I know! The fat is in the fire now! Somebody had to say it! It might as well be me. Too many conservatives dance around this issue. They are willing to call gay marriage wrong but they are unwilling to call homosexuality itself wrong. Well, let’s be clear. If there is nothing wrong with being gay then there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and gay people make good sense when they point that out.  Unfortunately, it begs the more obvious question: Is there indeed something wrong with homosexuality?  Yes there is.  It causes psychological harm.  I do not say this to sound condemning or to make anyone feel unwarranted guilt, but the truth is, people are involving themselves in a process that is unnatural.  This was the widespread teaching of the American Psychiatric Association prior to the year 1973.  Many people are unaware of the circumstances which led to homosexuality being declassified as an emotional disorder by the APA.  You may never have heard about the pressure from gay activists and gay psychiatrists who were involved in the meetings.  You should know that the discussions leading to the vote were not characterized with scholarly study but rather a great deal of fear.  In fact, so extended was the pressure, that only one third of the ballots sent out were ever returned.  Out of those returned, only 58 percent agreed to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Get that?  58 percent out of the one third returned or about 19 percent overall!

Prior to this time, homosexuals not only sought help from psychologists but also received healing.  Dr. Charles Socarides, who had successfully treated gays for more than 20 years ,said that the militant gay movement was responsible for “the greatest medical hoax of the century.” ¹

Although  many gay people sincerely claim that they cannot remember a time when they weren’t attracted to the same sex, that does not necessarily mean they were born homosexuals.  Elizabeth Moberly, a research Psychologist for Oxford and Cambridge, explains this by pointing out that people absorb their key influences of sexual orientation between the ages of 2 and 5, a time in life most of us would not remember anyway.²

Even molecular biologist, Dean Hammer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed one of the famous studies which sought to find genetic explanations, said, “Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psycho-social factors.” ³

It may someday be discovered that there are two types of homosexuality, a learned behavior and a genetic predisposition.  In either case, the homosexual in all likelihood did not choose his/her sexual orientation and should not be blamed for inward feelings or impulses.  Likewise, in either case, the acting out of such impulses would still be unnatural behavior.  It is believed that one can be born with a predisposition toward alcoholism too, but we would not encourage an alcoholic to drink.

“If homosexuality is really so unnatural how come most people don’t view it that way?”

Actually, I am convinced that most people do.  They have trouble admitting this because of today’s political climate which has been growing now for over three decades.

I went to high school in the early seventies coming out of a home so sheltered that for years I had never even heard of homosexuality.  When I discovered that certain fellow actors in my High School drama department were gay, my initial response was one of repulsion despite the fact that they were very nice people.  Of course, in a theater atmosphere people quickly learn to dismiss such feelings as rigid and old fashioned.  So, in no time at all I decided that varying sexual  lifestyles must be respected.  There was no room for judgment and back woods thinking.  In hindsight, it is interesting to note that my first reaction had nothing to do with the Bible because I wasn’t even a Christian or Bible believer at the time.  I was merely making a simple, obvious observation that men were meant for women and vice-versa.  Still, in time, it was easier to accept the idea that my feelings were outdated than to consider the possibility that the majority opinion may be mistaken. 

But what does the majority really think?  That is the interesting question.  Have you ever seen a sitcom where two men danced or one man accidentally kissed another?  We see it all the time.  It’s a common device and we laugh all the time.  It’s an easy guaranteed laugh.  Consider the finale of Cheers.  Two gay lovers were in the middle of a quarrel when one pleaded with his partner calling him by the pet name “Muffin”.  The audience laughed hysterically and I'm sure the producers felt that this was a very progressive episode because of a willingness to portray gay romance as normal.  One question:  Why did people laugh?  Why did the writers obviously intend for people to laugh?  What is funny about a man calling his lover “Muffin”?  If indeed we recognize the normality of that relationship, what exactly strikes us as humorous?

Centuries ago, Hans Christian Anderson illustrated the value of a simple childlike mind.  Remember his story of The Emperor's New Clothes?  A charlatan tailor, wanting to rook the king of a fortune, fashioned him a set of “fine apparel.”  There was one stipulation;  Only intelligent people could see these clothes.  Of course, the clothes didn't really exist, so nobody ever really saw them.  But nobody wanted to be viewed as unintelligent either. “If I can't see the clothes” one reasoned to himself,  “the problem must be with me.  After all, every one else sees them.”

You remember the rest.  At a grand parade, one small child tugged his mother's skirt and said,  “But Mommie, he's not wearing any clothes.”

Nakedness was once nakedness.  Now, as the result of one clever tailor, the word “naked” in relation to the king was politically incorrect.

Could this same tailor have visited the United States?  Maybe what we need today is an innocent child, like the one in the fairy tale; some red faced, nose running kid, who hasn't studied genetics, hasn't studied psychology, hasn't studied scripture and hasn't had sensitivity training.  All he knows is what he sees and feels. Maybe if something looks unnatural it is unnatural.  Maybe we all know the truth and are afraid to admit it.  Maybe the king isn't wearing any clothes.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

NOTE: For a further and fuller discussion of this topic, see my book, I’d Like To Believe In Jesus, But…Chapter Four: "Why Does the Bible Call Certain Practices Sinful?"

The fifty million dollar question thrown at conservatives these days has to do with gay marriage: “How exactly does it hurt your marriage or your family if two gay people get married?”

On its surface this would seem to be a fair question. Does another person’s marriage have any direct connection to your own?  Of course not. But I think we are missing a much bigger point. As Americans, our lives, our marriages and our families, do not exist in isolation. We are profoundly influenced by the direction of society as a whole. As a pastor, I have counseled many gays and I am sympathetic to their plight. Of course, I can understand their desire to be married and happy like every one else. At the same time, I would be lying if I said that gay marriage does not affect the rest of us. The truth is, one can list many such effects and I will do so right now:

1) THE EFFECT ON YOUR CHILDREN

Even if your children live in a stable, two parent, heterosexual home, you are only one of  many influences in your child’s life.  Homosexuality is being presented today as an alternative lifestyle, even at the kindergarten level!  Books such as, Heather Has Two Mommies are being read to your child at school. In fact, a recent California ruling now forbids the words father and mother in public schools out of respect for gay and transgender families. It is also against the law for any government institution in California to speak negatively of gays.  Although a good deal of this stuff was already going on, the recent court ruling of gay marriage in California gives the militant gay agenda a whole new set of teeth. Please do not try to tell me that these developments will not be affecting your child directly.

2) THE EFFECT ON OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN:

For years we have admitted, as a society, that children are better off in a two-parent home. Yes, there are loving single parents who have done a wonderful job. And yes, there are unhealthy dysfunctional two parent families. But pointing out exceptions to the rule, ignores this giant rule staring us in the face. Ideally, children need a healthy father and a healthy mother. They need both, because men and women are different and each gender has different things to offer in a child’s upbringing. We used to feel free to admit this rather obvious truth. But we have gotten so used to rolling over and playing dead for the militant gay activists, we now try to shove truth under the rug. The more children are raised by fathers and mothers together, the better we will all be as a society. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. Studies on ancient Rome and other cultures show that when the family breaks down, the entire country breaks down. So once again, I would say that gay marriage will have a rather large influence upon our joint future as Americans.

3) THE LEGAL EFFECT:

If I thought for one moment that legalized gay marriage would end this matter, I would have less of a problem with it. If I thought the militant gay community would now be satisfied and view things as square, if they could finally admit that they are no longer a persecuted minority and their plight is over, perhaps gay marriage would be something we could all live with.  I would still be concerned, but I could live with it. Unfortunately, the militant gay movement has no such intention and this latest “right” is only a small part of a much bigger agenda. 

Now, I do draw a distinction between most homosexuals who want to just be left alone and the militant gay agenda, which claims to speak for the majority. Despite my sympathy to the former, unfortunately, it is the militant gays whom we are being forced to deal with. Let’s be honest: The real militant gay agenda is to someday make it against the law to say that homosexuality is wrong. Oh, they’re smart enough to chip away at it one inch at a time because they know what a stupid country we have become and what a naïve people we have become, but make no mistake; the instigation of Thought Police is the true agenda.  As a matter of fact, that agenda was shamelessly written by Marshal Kirk and Hunger Madsen, as a manifesto back in the late 1980’s.   It was called, After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s. 

This manifesto was an open, strategic mission to launch a patient and persistent legal and media movement whose goal was to silence anti-homosexual speech. The strategy included loveable gay characters on sitcoms who encounter “old fashioned, narrow minded friends.”  But this was only the beginning. In the midst of debates, the soldiers of this cause were to portray anyone who disagreed with homosexuality as some kind of hate monger, even those whom they knew had a love for gays but merely disagreed with the lifestyle.

“Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…through repeated infra logical emotional conditioning, the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he will be of the true nature of the process.  In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even the slightest doubt and shame into the previously held unalloyed beliefs regarding heterosexuality and homosexuality" (pg 152-153 )

But calling someone a “homophobe” or “ hate filled” does not go far enough today.  After achieving the goals of  guilt and “greater sensitivity”, the militant gays are trying their hand at actual speech legislation.  Such legislation has already passed in Canada.  Now they’re trying to jam it through in the United States under the guise of Hate Crime.  Since violent crimes are already crimes, judging motives such as “hate” really makes Hate Crime Law, Hate Speech Law.  Saying that you love the homosexual but simply disapprove of his actions isn’t enough. You will still be branded as hateful and this will be in the name of tolerance. Christians and other conservatives must be tolerant of the opinion that homosexuality is natural.   Of course, homosexuals need not be tolerant of the fact that we might have another point of view.

The recent ruling in California is bound to open up a Pandora’s Box full of litigation. I am just waiting for pastors to be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. Supposedly, there is this thing called “separation between church and state” that the Left likes to keep ringing in our ears. But the separation never seems to work both ways, does it? We hear all the time about how the church must never interfere with the state. But supposedly this “separated state” is allowed to interfere with the church if the church holds a viewpoint it doesn’t like. Already, a Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not allowing a gay couple to get have a civic untion ceremony on their property. They lost the case and lost their tax exemption.  They don’t even have legal gay marriage in New Jersey. Can you just imagine what’s going to start happening in California? 

4) THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT

Since homosexuality is emotionally unstable and psychologically abnormal, exposing kids to the lie that it is natural, harms the child’s  healthy development. If this is true of the children being indoctrinated from kindergarten on up, one can only imagine the confusion passed on to children being raised by gay couples. I do not suggest that gay couples are unloving. I merely point out the dysfuntionality.

I know! The fat is in the fire now! Somebody had to say it! It might as well be me. Too many conservatives dance around this issue. They are willing to call gay marriage wrong but they are unwilling to call homosexuality itself wrong. Well, let’s be clear. If there is nothing wrong with being gay then there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and gay people make good sense when they point that out.  Unfortunately, it begs the more obvious question: Is there indeed something wrong with homosexuality?  Yes there is.  It causes psychological harm.  I do not say this to sound condemning or to make anyone feel unwarranted guilt, but the truth is, people are involving themselves in a process that is unnatural.  This was the widespread teaching of the American Psychiatric Association prior to the year 1973.  Many people are unaware of the circumstances which led to homosexuality being declassified as an emotional disorder by the APA.  You may never have heard about the pressure from gay activists and gay psychiatrists who were involved in the meetings.  You should know that the discussions leading to the vote were not characterized with scholarly study but rather a great deal of fear.  In fact, so extended was the pressure, that only one third of the ballots sent out were ever returned.  Out of those returned, only 58 percent agreed to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder.  Get that?  58 percent out of the one third returned or about 19 percent overall!

Prior to this time, homosexuals not only sought help from psychologists but also received healing.  Dr. Charles Socarides, who had successfully treated gays for more than 20 years ,said that the militant gay movement was responsible for “the greatest medical hoax of the century.” ¹

Although  many gay people sincerely claim that they cannot remember a time when they weren’t attracted to the same sex, that does not necessarily mean they were born homosexuals.  Elizabeth Moberly, a research Psychologist for Oxford and Cambridge, explains this by pointing out that people absorb their key influences of sexual orientation between the ages of 2 and 5, a time in life most of us would not remember anyway.²

Even molecular biologist, Dean Hammer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed one of the famous studies which sought to find genetic explanations, said, “Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psycho-social factors.” ³

It may someday be discovered that there are two types of homosexuality, a learned behavior and a genetic predisposition.  In either case, the homosexual in all likelihood did not choose his/her sexual orientation and should not be blamed for inward feelings or impulses.  Likewise, in either case, the acting out of such impulses would still be unnatural behavior.  It is believed that one can be born with a predisposition toward alcoholism too, but we would not encourage an alcoholic to drink.

“If homosexuality is really so unnatural how come most people don’t view it that way?”

Actually, I am convinced that most people do.  They have trouble admitting this because of today’s political climate which has been growing now for over three decades.

I went to high school in the early seventies coming out of a home so sheltered that for years I had never even heard of homosexuality.  When I discovered that certain fellow actors in my High School drama department were gay, my initial response was one of repulsion despite the fact that they were very nice people.  Of course, in a theater atmosphere people quickly learn to dismiss such feelings as rigid and old fashioned.  So, in no time at all I decided that varying sexual  lifestyles must be respected.  There was no room for judgment and back woods thinking.  In hindsight, it is interesting to note that my first reaction had nothing to do with the Bible because I wasn’t even a Christian or Bible believer at the time.  I was merely making a simple, obvious observation that men were meant for women and vice-versa.  Still, in time, it was easier to accept the idea that my feelings were outdated than to consider the possibility that the majority opinion may be mistaken. 

But what does the majority really think?  That is the interesting question.  Have you ever seen a sitcom where two men danced or one man accidentally kissed another?  We see it all the time.  It’s a common device and we laugh all the time.  It’s an easy guaranteed laugh.  Consider the finale of Cheers.  Two gay lovers were in the middle of a quarrel when one pleaded with his partner calling him by the pet name “Muffin”.  The audience laughed hysterically and I'm sure the producers felt that this was a very progressive episode because of a willingness to portray gay romance as normal.  One question:  Why did people laugh?  Why did the writers obviously intend for people to laugh?  What is funny about a man calling his lover “Muffin”?  If indeed we recognize the normality of that relationship, what exactly strikes us as humorous?

Centuries ago, Hans Christian Anderson illustrated the value of a simple childlike mind.  Remember his story of The Emperor's New Clothes?  A charlatan tailor, wanting to rook the king of a fortune, fashioned him a set of “fine apparel.”  There was one stipulation;  Only intelligent people could see these clothes.  Of course, the clothes didn't really exist, so nobody ever really saw them.  But nobody wanted to be viewed as unintelligent either. “If I can't see the clothes” one reasoned to himself,  “the problem must be with me.  After all, every one else sees them.”

You remember the rest.  At a grand parade, one small child tugged his mother's skirt and said,  “But Mommie, he's not wearing any clothes.”

Nakedness was once nakedness.  Now, as the result of one clever tailor, the word “naked” in relation to the king was politically incorrect.

Could this same tailor have visited the United States?  Maybe what we need today is an innocent child, like the one in the fairy tale; some red faced, nose running kid, who hasn't studied genetics, hasn't studied psychology, hasn't studied scripture and hasn't had sensitivity training.  All he knows is what he sees and feels. Maybe if something looks unnatural it is unnatural.  Maybe we all know the truth and are afraid to admit it.  Maybe the king isn't wearing any clothes.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

NOTE: For a further and fuller discussion of this topic, see my book, I’d Like To Believe In Jesus, But…Chapter Four: "Why Does the Bible Call Certain Practices Sinful?"

I believe people should be forced to take a basic intelligence test before they are allowed to vote.

Stop!  Stop right there!  I know what some of you are thinking! You are ready to call that a racist comment. Am I correct? Or, should I say, are you Politically Correct?

Well, chill out. Take a deep breath and relax. I am not talking about Jim Crow laws.  I mean EVERYBODY should be forced to take this test. This is not a racial thing. Believe me, I have met many stupid white people in my time. We should have to take the test whether we are white, African American, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, gay or straight, Martian or Earthling.

Why do I say this? Because people watching the last two debates are telling me Obama won. When I ask why they think he won, I hear any number of the following:

“Obama looked calm and cool. McCain seemed agitated.”

“Obama is young. McCain is old.”

“McCain seemed to have a frown on his face.”

So, let me see if I understand all this:

Our country is about to elect as president, a man who supports infanticide, unconditional talks with dictators, two bills that would eliminate free speech and mandatory redistribution of wealth. (Those are his own words and they are open words describing Socialism.)

This man also objected to a bill that would have stopped banks from being bullied into giving out loans to people who cannot afford to pay them. And his own campaign has funded ACORN, responsible for one of  the greatest mass voter frauds ever perpetrated upon our country.

Finally, he promises to raise taxes in the middle of a bad recession, The last president to try that brilliant maneuver was Herbert Hoover. Gee, that went over well. Good one, Herb.

Oh, I almost forgot his racist pastor, his terrorist friend and his Jew hating Palestinian associate whom he hopes liberal Democratic Jews will forget about when he brags about how Pro-Israel he is.

When asked by Rick Warren if evil existed, he could not say yes without immediately reminding us that the United States has also done evil things. He was praised for giving a “nuanced” answer.

When asked about Russia invading Georgia, he called upon “both sides to exercise restraint.” However, in this instance, we should cut him some slack. He was probably confused and thought Georgia was that state between South Carolina and Florida. Since in his mind, America is always responsible when attacked, he called upon restraint. Had he known Georgia was a foreign country, he might have defended her sooner.

And what are the positive qualities? What are his credentials? That he once collected funds for Bill Ayers, supporting a program that taught radical Marxism and revolutionary theory to college students? Or are his qualifications that he wrote his own autobiography? Maybe he deserves the job because he has been running for president for two years now and such hard work should be rewarded.  True, he was a senator as well.  What did he accomplish as a  Senator?   He ran for president.

And we are going to put this man in office, why exactly?  Because McCain looks old? Because McCain frowned?  Because McCain can't talk as smoothly?

I said it before and I’ll say it again. There should be a comprehensive written exam before people are allowed to vote.

When I was a young Democrat in college, I voted for George McGovern. I knew nothing about him, except that he was against the Vietnam War. I am not happy about that vote but it never mattered anyway. The man lost by a landslide. During the next election, when Carter ran against Ford, I was a little older (just a little) and a little wiser. Because of my wisdom I decided not to vote that year. Why? Because I had been too busy with college and social life to take an interest in politics. That was wrong of me. I should have taken an interest in politics, but I hadn’t. I could have voted anyway. I could have said, “It’s my right and privilege as an American and by golly, I’m going to vote!”

Instead, I was forced to look myself in the eye and admit that if I had (by choice) become too ignorant to understand one candidate from another, my vote would have been based upon “Eanie, Meanie, Minie, Moe.” Or worse, I would have voted for the Democratic candidate, only because I was a Democrat.  I decided not to vote that year. I have never regretted the decision. I wish more people would do the same.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also by Bob Siegel:

Poem Praising a Great Orator

I believe people should be forced to take a basic intelligence test before they are allowed to vote.

Stop!  Stop right there!  I know what some of you are thinking! You are ready to call that a racist comment. Am I correct? Or, should I say, are you Politically Correct?

Well, chill out. Take a deep breath and relax. I am not talking about Jim Crow laws.  I mean EVERYBODY should be forced to take this test. This is not a racial thing. Believe me, I have met many stupid white people in my time. We should have to take the test whether we are white, African American, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, gay or straight, Martian or Earthling.

Why do I say this? Because people watching the last two debates are telling me Obama won. When I ask why they think he won, I hear any number of the following:

“Obama looked calm and cool. McCain seemed agitated.”

“Obama is young. McCain is old.”

“McCain seemed to have a frown on his face.”

So, let me see if I understand all this:

Our country is about to elect as president, a man who supports infanticide, unconditional talks with dictators, two bills that would eliminate free speech and mandatory redistribution of wealth. (Those are his own words and they are open words describing Socialism.)

This man also objected to a bill that would have stopped banks from being bullied into giving out loans to people who cannot afford to pay them. And his own campaign has funded ACORN, responsible for one of  the greatest mass voter frauds ever perpetrated upon our country.

Finally, he promises to raise taxes in the middle of a bad recession, The last president to try that brilliant maneuver was Herbert Hoover. Gee, that went over well. Good one, Herb.

Oh, I almost forgot his racist pastor, his terrorist friend and his Jew hating Palestinian associate whom he hopes liberal Democratic Jews will forget about when he brags about how Pro-Israel he is.

When asked by Rick Warren if evil existed, he could not say yes without immediately reminding us that the United States has also done evil things. He was praised for giving a “nuanced” answer.

When asked about Russia invading Georgia, he called upon “both sides to exercise restraint.” However, in this instance, we should cut him some slack. He was probably confused and thought Georgia was that state between South Carolina and Florida. Since in his mind, America is always responsible when attacked, he called upon restraint. Had he known Georgia was a foreign country, he might have defended her sooner.

And what are the positive qualities? What are his credentials? That he once collected funds for Bill Ayers, supporting a program that taught radical Marxism and revolutionary theory to college students? Or are his qualifications that he wrote his own autobiography? Maybe he deserves the job because he has been running for president for two years now and such hard work should be rewarded.  True, he was a senator as well.  What did he accomplish as a  Senator?   He ran for president.

And we are going to put this man in office, why exactly?  Because McCain looks old? Because McCain frowned?  Because McCain can't talk as smoothly?

I said it before and I’ll say it again. There should be a comprehensive written exam before people are allowed to vote.

When I was a young Democrat in college, I voted for George McGovern. I knew nothing about him, except that he was against the Vietnam War. I am not happy about that vote but it never mattered anyway. The man lost by a landslide. During the next election, when Carter ran against Ford, I was a little older (just a little) and a little wiser. Because of my wisdom I decided not to vote that year. Why? Because I had been too busy with college and social life to take an interest in politics. That was wrong of me. I should have taken an interest in politics, but I hadn’t. I could have voted anyway. I could have said, “It’s my right and privilege as an American and by golly, I’m going to vote!”

Instead, I was forced to look myself in the eye and admit that if I had (by choice) become too ignorant to understand one candidate from another, my vote would have been based upon “Eanie, Meanie, Minie, Moe.” Or worse, I would have voted for the Democratic candidate, only because I was a Democrat.  I decided not to vote that year. I have never regretted the decision. I wish more people would do the same.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also by Bob Siegel:

Poem Praising a Great Orator

Instead, Barbara West asked if Obama’s economic policies were Marxist.

Jaw Breaker Joe almost hit the floor. “Are you kidding?” he said. “Is this a serious question?”

West assured him she was quite serious. Joe tried to ward off this unexpected volcanic eruption by asking West what she could possibly be talking about and I must say, he delivered an Oscar caliber performance.  Joe really did manage to make himself look astonished. We (the dumb viewers) were supposed to suspend belief and assume that Obama’s little discussion with Joe the Plumber hadn’t been all over the news or that Obama’s 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio had not recently turned up over the internet.

In any event, Barbara West quoted Obama’s words about spreading wealth around.

“Obama never said that!” Joe insisted. It reminded me of his debate with Palin. Remember?  Every single time Biden said, “Let’s just get the record straight,” he proceeded to lie through his teeth.

Biden and Obama have gotten quite good at this. One would think that in the age of video and the age of YouTube, politicians would realize that their words of the past are still preserved for posterity, including auditory sound bites that dumped out of their big mouths like Yosemite Falls only a few days ago. Why do they deny what is plain to see and plain to hear? The answer is simple. The answer is also tragic. Our public and our media have led them to believe that they can get away with historical revision, even when the facts of history are readily available.

Future generations will marvel over this. Historians and political analysts will try to explain one of two things:

1) How our society managed to put these men in office

OR

2) How our society ALMOST put these men in office.

It’s not too late yet. We can still go for Option Two. Better to lament what we almost did than to have an administration where brave anchorwomen like Barbara West are not even allowed to be on the air.

Any Other Candidate Would Have Been Out of the Race