NEWS U.S. court upholds same-sex teaching to children

_____________________________________________________
Date Line February 24, 2007

Well, the Boston Federal Court has dismissed a case by two satanic and hypocritical “Christian” families – who didn’t like textbooks that dealt with gay marriage.

Naturally, being idiotic Satanic Right-wing Christians, it is natural that these families would misrepresent biblical teachings and oppose educating the young about the diverse works of the creator.

Federal Judge Mark Wolf ruled on Friday that public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

It appears it is impossible for these bigots to honor the teachings and laws set forth in the Bible; but not impossible for them to reveal their true role as deceivers of mankind.

These satanic families – stepped outside their roles as supporters of wars of choice and killers of children to assert that the teaching of the divine process which results in sexual role and related inclination variation among many of the family orientated species "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith."

What is it that these plaintiffs claim as the basis of their faith – why nothing more or less than the promotion of bigotry, the denial of any divine wisdom and plan or objective.

Where do these homophobic get these ideas – nobody, beyond their satanic master, really knows. What is known, is they have a two fold pattern of conduct: They deny the applicability of laws known to promote health and longevity , while routinely misrepresent adjacent biblical laws – all the time insisting that both their deny of law, and misrepresentation of law, be the basis upon which to demonstrate compliance with those same laws.

Homosexuality is NOT a tenet of Biblical law! There is one law – which pertains solely to men (women would need to be specified, and a different phrasing utilized, if there were to be any rational and honest basis for asserting it applied to homosexual conduct). Begin with the FACT that6 the idea and term, ”homosexual”, is Victorian; and has no social basis prior to the mid-1800's – it is not Biblical.

Leviticus 18:22 (V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.) – "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." There are many translation variations, but none (other than the bigoted modern “paraphrased” interpretations) refers to the homosexual act.

What does it mean? To know these, we must ask:

First, did the biblical writer know the physical differences between a man and a woman? Did they know that women have birth canals and not a penis? That these vaginal areas do not exist in men and therefore their utilization by a man cannot be duplicated with a man?

Second, did the biblical writer understand “as with”? If so, it is clear that, absent a vagina, the topic must become anal usage. Thus the usage would necessitate that anal between a man and woman is quite natural and acceptable. This would, naturally, also apply to oral contact as well.

Thus, at the very least – because it is the premise from which an interpretation can be derived – we have a Biblical approval for male-female oral and anal sexual activity. To deny this activity on Biblically based religious grounds would be Satanic – to deceive the bulk of mankind as to the biblical content and meaning.

Third, the real question associated with this prohibition is the meaning of “lay with”. Men and women might lay under the same covers; they would be naked with one and other while the lay. There is nothing physically sexual involved – but in that context, the prohibition fits perfectly into the multitude of associated laws related to “exposing nakedness” of the male.

Thus, short of declaring the author of the law a complete and utter idiot – totally ignorant of human physiology – what we have is simply another law dealing with men being in physical proximity with naked another naked man while sleeping. It is not “sexual” in the meaning of the physical act.

More import, in the context of homosexual understanding, it does NOT apply to women – it specifically, through the failure to reference as other laws reference both genders, excludes women. Thus it expressly removes itself from any modern, Victorian, homosexual based interpretation.
_____________________________________________________