Porterville Councilman Ward Revises Web Site After Charges Made

Porterville City Councilmember Brian Ward has updated his hateful campaign web site, voteforbrianward.com in response to public comments at last night’s City Council meeting that some of the material there was unethical and illegal. The assertion was made that some material was either a midemeanor or felony at the prosecutor’s discretion, and that the charges could carry up to 3 years in prison. Today the offending material was taken down, but not before it was captured by members of the public, and distributed to news media.

In addition, as of this writing, google cache still has some of the, err, “interesting” material. In the interest of keeping it available for public consumption forever,  I have cut and pasted from google cache  after the jump.

Brian is a School Psychologist at a local public school. He is educated enough to know that the tripe he spouts here about homosexuals is not the view of his field, it is the cheapest form of political opportunism. And it calls into question what sort of advice he can and does provide the children under hos professional care.

Discuss in comments.

Proposition 8: The California Marriage Protection Amendment
Please visit: www.protectmarriage.com for more information
Places into the California Constitution the same language that voters already passed by 61% of the vote in 2000. This is necessary to overturn an outrageous California Supreme Court decision that overturned Proposition 22.

The entire text of Proposition 8 is as follows:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”

Because four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, we need to pass this measure as a constitutional amendment to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
Voting YES on Proposition 8 does 3 simple things:

  1. It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

2. It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.


3. It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

Religious Reasoning to Support Proposition 8

The residents of Porterville with 83% support, just made the city’s motto “In God We Trust.”  We as a people, we need to trust in God in believing in his way of building strong families and societies.  In Genesis, God creates a man and a women and commands them to multiply and replenish the earth (homosexual couples are incapable of procreation or creating life).  The record indicates that “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”  In chapter 2, God states, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”  The following explaination of  the phrase “help meet for him” comes from Dr. Bruce Satterfield, a professor at BYU-Idaho:

The phrase “help meet for him” translates the Hebrew words ezer kenegdo. These words are a little difficult for me to translate. Ezer literally means, “help” and is similar in meaning to the English word ‘help.’ However, kenegdo, translated ‘meet for him’, is more difficult to translate. The root word, neged, literally means ‘opposite’, ‘in the presence of’, ‘over against’, ‘in front of’, ‘corresponding to’, or ‘aside’.  Literally, kenegdo means, ‘opposite as to him’ or ‘corresponding as to him’.


The sense of the phrase ezer kenegdo is ‘an equal but opposite helper to him’. For example, my left hand is the ezer kenegdo to my right hand; both hands look alike except they are exactly opposite. Both hands are equal but opposite. This is so that they might work better together. Imagine trying to pick up a shovel with two hands that are positioned the same! Again, the ezer kenegdo of the right wing of an airplane is the left wing; they look exactly the same except they are opposite each other. Both wings are equal but opposite. This is so that the airplane can fly. One wing is no more important than the other. The same is true with man and woman. Man’s ezer kenegdo is woman. Both are equal but opposite. It requires both to fulfill the role of parenthood!

This would explain the statement at the end of chapter 2 in Genesis which states: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”  Marriage was instituted by God for the purpose of raising a righteous posterity, not because of love or for sexual pleasure and the design was to have two equal but opposite parents doing this work.  God has only shared one of his powers with all of his children, the power to procreate and he has done so with strict guidelines to its use.  This is why the abuse of the procreative power of God is looked upon by Him so abominably (adultery, fornication, incest, homosexuality), they prevent families from ever taking place and also work to destroy them.  The scriptures have many examples that show that the abuse of the procreative power by mankind is a sign of a societies spiritual deteriation and that they are moving away from God towards their carnal lusts (Gen. 19:5; Lev. 18:22 (20:13); Deut. 23:17; Isaiah 3:9; Romans 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 1:7; etc.).

Non-Religious Reasoning to Support Proposition 8


This reasoning is from Jason Dulle taken from the world wide web on August 3, 2008 from: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexualuc.htm

An Argument Against Homosexuality

Homosexuality is Unnatural

Nature argues against homosexuality as an “alternative” lifestyle. Homosexuality is simply unnatural. Speaking as plainly as I can, people have “in holes” and “out holes” in their body. Some holes are designed to take things in, while others are designed to rid things from the body. While some holes perform both functions, the duality of function is evidenced by natural design (the vagina is meant to take in a male penis, but also expel an infant child). We should not confuse the obvious and natural purpose of our body’s holes.

Natural law entails the idea that our various physical and psychological capacities are intended “for” particular purposes. Once we determine what those purposes are we have a basis for determining what behaviors are virtuous and which behaviors are not; “which actions will tend to help us to realize our ends and which will tend to keep us from doing so.” [Edward Feser, “Natural Ends and Natural Law”; available from http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/001518.html#more; Internet; accessed 25 May 2005.] Edward Feser wrote,

What makes a certain act “natural” has everything to do with whether it in fact involves using a capacity in a way consistent with its natural function or purpose, and nothing necessarily to do with whether or not someone has, for whatever reason, a strong desire to use it that way or some other way. It follows that whether or not someone has, for example, a genetic predisposition to want to engage in homosexual acts is, from the point of view of traditional natural law theory, completely irrelevant to whether such a desire is “natural” in the sense in question, and thus completely irrelevant to the issue of whether such acts are moral or immoral. Edward Feser, [“Natural Ends and Natural Law”; available from http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/001518.html#more; Internet; accessed 25 May 2005.]

To be “unnatural” requires more than simply using something in a way other than what it was intended for; for something to be unnatural requires that we use it in a way that is contrary to, or frustrates its natural purpose.

The body was made to function a specific way. Men were not made to function sexually with men, nor women with women, but rather men were made to function sexually with women. While a man’s penis can be made to fit into several human orifices, it is clear as to which orifice it is intended to be used with when we consider the substance emitted by the penis upon orgasm: semen. Semen has only one purpose: to create new life. This purpose can only be fulfilled when it is mixed with a female egg, and such a meeting can only occur while the penis is inside a vagina. A male penis is designed to function with a woman, period. That is natural. Homosexuality is unnatural because it abandons the natural function of the human body. Even homosexual activists are honest about the fact that homosexuality is not natural, or normal. Lesbian activist Camille Paglia, for example, offered the following observations:

“Homosexuality is not ‘normal’ On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm…Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous…homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait….” (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)

We determine one’s sex by looking at their parts. If one’s parts are designed to function one way, and yet their sexual desires are directed in another way it seems reasonable to believe that something is awry. When one’s desires do not match the hardware afforded them by nature the problem is not with the hardware, but with the desires. When something is created for a specific purpose and yet an individual is psychologically incapable of using it for its intended purpose, shouldn’t this clue us into the fact that something is wrong? This observation alone ought to clue us in to the fact that homosexuality is not natural, nor is it “normal.” Homosexuality is a perversion of the body’s natural function.

The Argument from Evolution

The theory of evolution argues against homosexuality as well. In a world where only the fit survive to pass their genotypes on to the next generation, homosexuals are doomed to rapid extinction. While I do not personally believe this to be so, from the evolutionary perspective I fail to see how one could not conclude that the homosexual community is evolutionary inferior to the heterosexual community. Because homosexuals cannot produce offspring they cannot continue in the fight for survival, and thus are inferior to the “species” of heterosexuals. There is no denying that the homosexual lifestyle contradicts the natural order of things (even from an evolutionary perspective in which there is no design in the universe, the natural use of our sex organs is still witnessed by examining the reason for which nature favored them: procreation.), and is not conducive to the process of natural selection of their kind. The belief in evolution is inconsistent with a belief in the equality of homosexuality to heterosexuality.

The Argument from Health

I am persuaded that we should be disapproving of homosexual behavior for health reasons as well. Simply put, homosexual activity produces a health risk to society. As a society we have the duty to campaign against behaviors that destroy individual lives and the lives of others. The Gay Report (homosexual researchers) surveyed the sexual habits of homosexuals and

discovered that 99% had engaged in oral sex; 91% had engaged in anal intercourse; 83% engaged in rimming (mouth to anus contact); 22% had fisted their sex partners; 23% admitted to golden showers (urinating on a sex partner); 76% admitted to group or public sex; 4% admitted ingesting feces. These behaviors are breeding grounds for a whole variety of serious intestinal parasites, viruses, and bacteria known collectively as ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome.’ In addition to these intestinal diseases, homosexual males are also at high risk for anal cancer. Dr. Stephen E. Goldstone, the medical director of Gay Health.com says that 68% of HIV-positive and 45% of HIV-negative homosexual men have abnormal or precancerous anal cells.

Other reports bear out the same sort of conclusions:

Professor Joel Palefsky at the University of California, San Francisco clinical research center says that active homosexual men have a 37-fold increased risk (35 per 100,00) of developing anal cancer than heterosexual men (.8 per 100,000). Homosexuals with HIV develop anal cancer at a rate of 59.4 per 100,000. [See “Diagnosis and Management of Anal Cancer”; available from http://www.analcancerinfo.ucsf.edu/cancer/index.html; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008. See also Judith A. Abert, M.D., “Effect of HAART on Incidence of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3 Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men”; available from http://www.thebody.com/content/art16413.html; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008. See also Pragna Patel, MD, MPH; Debra L. Hanson, MS; Patrick S. Sullivan, DVM, PhD; Richard M. Novak, MD; Anne C. Moorman, BSN, MPH; Tony C. Tong, MS; Scott D. Holmberg, MD, MPH; and John T. Brooks, MD, “Incidence of Types of Cancer among HIV-Infected Persons Compared with the General Population in the United States, 1992-2003,” in Annals of Internal Medicine, 148:10, pp. 728-736, published May 20, 2008; available from http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/148/10/728; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008. ]

The Centers for Disease Control reports that of the approximately 40,000 new cases of HIV infections eported each year, male homosexuals account for 72%, heterosexuals 15%, and heterosexual drug users 13% of that number. [See “HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex with Men”; available from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008.]

there are approximately 40,000 new HIV infections each year-due to large numbers of younger homosexuals engaging in unprotected sex. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ‘HIV/AIDS Statistics” fact sheet notes that 60% of all new HIV infections are homosexual men; 25% through injecting drugs; and 15% through heterosexual sex. These statistics alone should be sufficient reason to discourage homosexual sex acts, homosexual marriages, or domestic partnerships. These relationships are breeding grounds for diseases and death.” (This information has been quoted from http://64.55.184.74/tvc1/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=22)

The Argument from the Public Safety of Our Children

Practicing homosexuals as a group are more prone to sexual molestation of children than are their heterosexual counterparts. The statistics quoted below bear this fact out:

Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as ‘homosexual’ or ‘bisexual.’ A 1995 survey of 18- to 49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In short, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

While it is technically correct that heterosexuals account for most molestations (because 98% of the population is heterosexual), homosexuals are much more dangerous to our children on a per capita basis. In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. 32% of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a survey of 153 homosexual molesters, Abel found that they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals ‘sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.’

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescent sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., ‘Adolescent Sex Offenders-Vermont, 1984’ Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, ‘Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,’ Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. ‘Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,’ Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200) From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of as many as 40% of all sexual molestations of children. (This information has been quoted from http://64.55.184.74/tvc1/pdf_files/HomosexualChildMolesters.pdf)

The Free Republic reproduced the following data/studies:

Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard andAB. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, “Homosexual Sample: Age at First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact,” and Table 444, “Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact.”] A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.” [Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number IJ, pages 67-76.] Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.” [Ray Blanchard, et. aI. “Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 28, Number 2, pages 111-127.] A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.” [Kurt Freund, Robin Watson and Douglas Rienzoo “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference.” Journal of Sex Research, February 1989 [Volume 26,Number 1), pages l.] A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. [W.D. Erickson, et al. “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters.” 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77,83 (1988).] In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.” [Freund, G. Heasman, I.G. Racansky, and G. Glancy. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality.” Journal of Sex andMarital Therapy, Fall 1984 [Volume 10, Number 3], pages 193 to 200.] Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” – that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys. [Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak OutAbout Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275.] In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. [Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992).] A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. [Alan P. Bell, et. aI., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980].] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1399042/posts

Conclusion

In light of the above, what reason would citizens of a civilized society want to promote homosexuality as an acceptable, alternative lifestyle? The statistics show that homosexuality is responsible for increasing the risk of both health problems and our children’s safety. Do we desire to promote disease within our society? Do we desire high rates of child molestation? Then why would we want to tolerate the practice of homosexuality, condemning those who speak against the practice for moral and social reasons? I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts our children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.

Posted in Porterville City Council, Same Sex Marriage Rights and tagged .