New Constitutional Amendment

[Deleted member 2452]

i'm jewish, iran won't take me

😛

anyway on to a point that MUST be clarified.
what tax advantages do the married get???
in FACT, we married couple pay more! there really is a "marriage penelty tax". my wife and i pay almost $1100 more in income taxes, because we are married. i have figured our taxes individually, and as married, and we pay substantualy more because we are married!

and we all know we can thank bill fucking clinton and the democrat controlled congress of 1993 for that screwing!

but back to the issue. even if we allow homosexuals to marry, who's going to proform the cerimony? will the queers be allowed to sue a church, or temple if the priest, or rabi refuse to preside over such a disgusting union?

they don't need marriage, just a half assed lawyer, to fill out wills, and power of attourny forms.

steve

 

[Flatfoot]

Probably because you and your wife make too much money, Steve. The tax breaks are more for lower-income families. Things like EIC. I'm no tax expert, though.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Probably because you and your wife make too much money, Steve. The tax breaks are more for lower-income families. Things like EIC. I'm no tax expert, though.

no that's far from it! as individuals we both get a refund. as married, filling seperately we pay, and as married filling jointly we pay even more! we've joked about getting divorced to avoid the taxes.
i have talked to an accountant, he said there's nothing to be done. it's in the tax code, if you're married, you pay more.

steve

 

[MrMacphisto]

Re: i'm jewish, iran won't take me

😛

anyway on to a point that MUST be clarified.
what tax advantages do the married get???
in FACT, we married couple pay more! there really is a "marriage penelty tax". my wife and i pay almost $1100 more in income taxes, because we are married. i have figured our taxes individually, and as married, and we pay substantualy more because we are married!

and we all know we can thank bill fucking clinton and the democrat controlled congress of 1993 for that screwing!

but back to the issue. even if we allow homosexuals to marry, who's going to proform the cerimony? will the queers be allowed to sue a church, or temple if the priest, or rabi refuse to preside over such a disgusting union?

they don't need marriage, just a half assed lawyer, to fill out wills, and power of attourny forms.

steve

Steve... once again, you astound me with your misinformation... Reagan was the first to install the marriage penalty. It was part of a piece of legislation passed during his first term. Congress was Democrat controlled at the time, but if he really was against it, he would've vetoed it.

The lawsuit issue is a farce. Churches are private institutions, and therefore, they can decide who they'll marry and have in their congregation and who they won't. The government has no legal jurisdiction over such things, and Steve, I think you already know this. As you said, all they need is a "half-assed" lawyer, which brings me to my next point: churches aren't an issue in this matter, because surely, most gay marriages will probably occur amidst secular institutions.

 

[Mimi]

Hmmm. That's new. I do my own taxes, as well as the taxes of many friends and family. Have for years. I'm just a whiz when it comes to numbers. I was paying much less taxes, and getting a much larger refund while married. Next year, I'll wind up paying in filing single. Married couple tax credit helps eliminate the need to pay in. As does the working families tax credit. If you're still having to pay in, then you're either not getting enough witheld from your checks, not taking advantage of the tax credits, not itemizing, or you're making a damn decent amount of money.

And please, lets refrain from the derogatory gay slang. They are not "fruits" or "queers". Homosexual or gay makes the point clearly enough without being crude.

Mimi

 

[kis123]

Hmmm. And please, lets refrain from the derogatory gay slang. They are not "fruits" or "queers". Homosexual or gay makes the point clearly enough without being crude.

Mimi

Steve I was going to talk to you about this one. You made a comment on a previous thread recently regarding being offended about calling a Jew a "kike". I certainly would be offended if someone used the "n" word on a post. It's very difficult to tolerate when people say things about my Christianity or my spiritual stance on things, but as long as they're not name-calling or mud slinging, they're within their rights of free speech.

I agree with you wholehartedly regarding the homosexual lifestyle. It's not for me. But they're human beings with feelings just like you, and should be respected whether we embrace the lifestlye or not.

Now, back to the spirit of the thread.......

 

[intense tickler]

It really takes away any sort of serious credibility of the party posting when someone post somthing and uses words like queer. And i really dont think this is so much a tax issue, thought there were alot of valid points made. Its really about the right of 2 people to join in a union regardless of race, ethnic backround or gender.

 

[kis123]

I think Steve's been sufficiently reprimanded even from myself. Let's get back to the thread, shall we? Sometimes we get away from the initial purpose of the thread when we get caught up on this stuff.

This is Kis returning you back to the original thread.......

 

[Oddjob0226]

Re: send the homos to holland

since it';s already leagle there, let our homos go to holand and live there! see, now everyone will be happy!

Yeah - they're already famous for their dikes.


10,000+ people on this website and you all missed that one. "Dang!", says Joe Dirt.

 

[JPie1]

Let's keep the gays and send areenactor to Iran instead. A theocracy where being gay is punished with torture and death -- he'd love it.

And the only reason this amendment is coming up is because George W. Bush is desperate. His approval rating is even lower than his grades at Yale, he has nothing in his record to run on, cultural conservatives are threatening to desert him -- so all he can do is try to fire up his supporters and distract the media from the mess he's made.

Remember when Bush the First's popularity ratings started dropping and he suddenly decided that it was necessary to have a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag-burning (because of those big flag-burning parties you had on every block back in those days)? History's repeating itself.

And by the way, I would think that on this of all boards, the idiotic idea that people "choose" to be gay would be exposed for the sham it is. Whether you admit it to yourself or not, we are most of us practitioners of what the mainstream considers deviant sexual behavior. Did you "choose" to be a ticklephile? I know I didn't.

Shem,

That was wonderfully said and I agree with you point for point and word for word...well done.

Judy

 

[MrMacphisto]

Oddjob.... LMAO... good one...

 

[Deleted member 2452]

et tu jpie?

you want to send me off to iran too? damn, and you're a fellow jew!
ah well..

ok, i guess my use of terms like queer, and fruit, are,.. gee what's the word, i had it just a minute ago... damn, i can't remember!
arugh!

ok it isn't polite, nice, politicaly cottect, intellectually advanced, etc. i shall try to refrain from further usage of these names.

nope it was under clinton that the marriage penalty tax was enacted.
you are right that under redan we also got screwed in the almost famous 1986 tax over-haul. i was bitterly disappointed in regan that he let tip o'neal make the new changes. i ended up paying more then too! that was also the first time social security was to be taxed.

homosexuals are people, but they do not live the life of "average people" so they do not deserve the full rights of average people.
if as has been said that most homosexuals will seek non-sectarian cerimonies, then why not just accept civil cerimonies as has been offered in mass.? no that was challanged, and full religious cerimonies demanded. the 3 man mass supreem court ruled in their favor, stating that religios cerimonies had to be statred as on 5/1 ,if memory serves. so i ask again, what if the priest says "get the hell out of here". up till now there has been a seperation of church and state, i am affraid this will change under this new trend.
we already have law suits against priests, and archdiocies, so why not over refusal of homosexual marriage?

there was a great article in yesterdays wall street journal, i heard it on the radio. look it up, the writer said some very interesting things,and raised some great points.

tottles.
steve

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Uh, Steve...

"homosexuals are people, but they do not live the life of "average people" so they do not deserve the full rights of average people."

Within a radius of a one hour drive, we have a homosexual community whose combined income equals the gross national product of any number of civilized countries, Steve. Investment bankers, stockbrokers, Captains Of Industry, corporate giants, Chairpersons of the Board. They live in million dollar houses on three acre lots, houses with furniture that's not even for sale in your neighborhood, along with a plurality of cars we can't afford to ride in, much less buy. They're patrons of the Arts. They're Liberals who give MUCH money to parties and causes that would make Karl Rove throw up. No, Steve, they're not average people. It sounds to me that they're WAY above average.

I'm not sure, but I think it was Victor Hugo who wrote, "...nor the tread of mighty armies cannot stop an idea whose time has come." I certainly think that homophobic bigots like you, Steve, haven't got a chance.

I went to my cousin's commitment ceremony last year with my wife out on the Main Line. The combined income of my cousin and his partner could make one's eyes bug out of one's head. The favors purchased for the ceremony and the reception were not average, I can tell you, nor was the caviar/roe station. As a veteran of many weddings, bar mitzvahs and the like, I can tell you that it was well above average. Like my cousin. Great guy. By the way, his wife and children attended the affair, and they had a great time. All the love and support his family gave him certainly outweigh the invective of someone who wants to send the uh...fruits to Holland where they'd be happy. Sometimes that's worth remembering...

 

[Shem the Penman]

You're both wrong, actually. The marriage penalty arose from changes in the tax code that were enacted back in 1969. See, for instance, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-1-98.htm (in the "Legislative History" section). The tax reforms of 1986 and 1993 did affect the penalty, of course, but it didn't originate with either of them.

As for the rest of areenactor's post, he clearly doesn't understand the difference between civil unions, civil (i.e. non-religious) marriages, and religious marriages. (For starters, the Massachusetts decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with religious marriages. As has been said approximately eight billion times before, the courts have no power to compel religious bodies to marry anyone they're unwilling to marry; to do otherwise would be a violation of the First Amendment.) Do some research.

 

[JPie1]

et tu jpie? you want to send me off to iran too? damn, and you're a fellow jew!
ah well

Ah Steve, since when does being Jewish mean that I can't believe in equality for all men and woman regardless of their choice of sexual orientation?

Yes I am Jewish with a fairly decent head on my shoulders, I have many..many gay friends who are about the classiest, considerate, generous people I know and glad to call them my friends. And along with knox's statement they are not just average people, some of them yes but some of them make damn good money and are great professionals just like you and I. I don't believe religion should play a part in civil marriages. And you know Steve we Jews for many years have been scrunched into many stereotypes...why do you stereotype gay people?

Judy

 

[ShadowTklr]

As for the rest of areenactor's post, he clearly doesn't understand the difference between civil unions, civil (i.e. non-religious) marriages, and religious marriages. (For starters, the Massachusetts decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with religious marriages. As has been said approximately eight billion times before, the courts have no power to compel religious bodies to marry anyone they're unwilling to marry; to do otherwise would be a violation of the First Amendment.) Do some research.

Shem, the idea that you would recommend research as a way of gathering information for intelligent discussion is just beyond my grasp. Surely you understand that simply espousing ignorant statements based on personal hatred for other people is the much shorter distance between two points. 🙄

 

[BigJim]

Personally I think the bringing of religious principles over two thousand years old into a discussion on modern society's laws is completely non-sensical. There is no argument against homosexual relationships except for the religious one and the one on personal biggotry. And if the two homosexuals aren't fundementalist christians/jews/muslims, what then? Making a law against their way of life having legal/spiritual status is religious discrimination; you are effectively imposing your religious views on them. If it's done on a basis of the law-maker thinking it's "just wrong" or "disgusting", then they're imposing their own views on both on someone with a completely different spin on life and totally different personal feelings. Why should what they can do in their life be dictated to by what other people think? Their relationship harms no-one else or society in general, so why ban it?

On the point of who is to officiate at such a ceremony, it's pretty simple I think. If it's civil marriage then it gets done by whatever the American equivalent of a JP or magistrate is. If it's religious, then it probably doesn't get done at all unless the religion itself undergoes fundemental change at the highest level. I personally don't think marriage is necessary for someone to commit their feelings towards someone else. I would do it only for the sake of having my pension cover my wife in the event of my death. Admittedly I have very different views on marriage to 99% of people in the world, and especially America. I see nothing immoral in an open relationship providing all participants are fully aware and consenting. Nor do I see anything inherantly immoral in a polygamous relationship, providing it isn't soley for the benefit of the male. If he's allowed more than one partner, so must the she be.

I think that's why I'm less afraid of change than other people. The world I live in has very different rules on what is considered personally moral than most "conventional" people.

 

[natural tickler]

Bottom line Jim, and I am not bringing religion into this, it is just plain wrong, because it just isn't natural. Period. Life is that bad for you out there in a heterosexual life, forcing you to go to the other side? The sanctity of marriage would be destroyed if an amendment is not passed

and now back to regular programming

 

[BigJim]

On the subject of Jewish people who speak out...

Ah Steve, since when does being Jewish mean that I can't believe in equality for all men and woman regardless of their choice of sexual orientation?

Yes I am Jewish with a fairly decent head on my shoulders, I have many..many gay friends who are about the classiest, considerate, generous people I know and glad to call them my friends. And along with knox's statement they are not just average people, some of them yes but some of them make damn good money and are great professionals just like you and I. I don't believe religion should play a part in civil marriages. And you know Steve we Jews for many years have been scrunched into many stereotypes...why do you stereotype gay people?

Judy

I once saw an article writeen by a man called Rabbi Mordechi Weberman. If someone who wasn't Jewish wrote something of this ilk, they'd be roundly condemned as anti-semitic and the ADL would be down their underpants with the gelding shears before you could blink.

Because We Are Jews by Rabbi Mordechi Weberman
There are those who ask us why we march with the Palestinians. Why do we raise the Palestinian flag? Why do we support the Palestinian cause?
"You are Jews!" they tell us. "What are you doing?"
And our response is very simple:
It is precisely because we are Jews that we march with the Palestinians and raise their flag!
It is precisely because we are Jews that we demand the Palestinian peoples be returned to their homes and properties!
Yes, in our torah we are commanded to be fair. We are called upon to pursue justice. And, what could be more unjust than the century-old attempt of the Zionist movement to invade another people's land, to drive them out and steal their property?
The early Zionists proclaimed they were a people without a land going to a land without any people.
Innocent sounding words.
But utterly and totally untrue.
Palestine was a land with a people. A people that were developing a national consciousness.
We have no doubt that would Jewish refugees have come to Palestine not with the intention of dominating, not with the intention of making a Jewish state, not with the intention of depriving the Palestinians of their basic rights, that they would have been welcomed by the Palestinians, with the same hospitality that Islamic peoples have shown Jews throughout history. And we would have lived together as Jews and Muslims lived before in Palestine in peace and harmony.
To our Islamic and Palestinian friends around the world, please hear our message-
There are Jews around the world who support your cause. And when we support your cause we do not mean some partition scheme proposed in 1947 by a UN that had no right to offer it.
When we say we support your cause we do not mean the cut off and cut up pieces of the West Bank offered by Barak at Camp David together with justice for less than 10% of the refugees.
We do not mean anything other than returning the entire land, including Jerusalem, to Palestinian sovreignty!
At that point justice demands that the Palestinian people should decide if and how many Jews should remain in the Land.
This is the only true path to reconcilliation.
But we demand yet more. WE demand that in returning the land back to its rightful owners we have not yet done enough. There should be an apology to the Palestinian people which is clear and precise. Zionism did you wrong. Zionism stole your homes. Zionism stole your land.
By so proclaiming we proclaim before the world that we are the people of the Torah, that our faith demands that we be honest and fair and good and kind.
We have attended hundreds of pro-Palestinian rallies over the years and everywhere we go the leaders and audience greet us with the warmth of Middle Eastern hospitality. What a lie it is to say that Palestinians in particular or Muslims in general hate Jews. You hate injustice. Not Jews.
Fear not my friends. Evil cannot long triumph. The Zionist nightmare is at its end. It is exhausted. Its latest brutalities are the death rattle of the terminally ill.
We will both live to see the day when Jew and Palestinian will embrace in peace under the Palestinian flag in Jerusalem.
And ultimately when mankind's Redeemer will come the sufferings of the present will be long forgotten in the blessings of the future.

Nicked without permission from http://www.marchforjustice.com/Becausewearejews.php .

Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the Rabbi's writing, that's not the point of my repeating it here. My point is that points of view evolve and so do personal moral conceptions. Once you would have been stoned to death for daring to express your love for someone of the same sex, if you'd done what religion had told you to. Now the more mild-mannered people in society don't castigate people for having an alternate lifestyle; but why stop there? If we're going to say that they can do it and not be stoned, isn't it daft to only make it semi-non sinful? Isn't it also a bit patronising? What harm does it do anyone who isn't gay to let gay people legally establish their relationships?

 

[BigJim]

Bottom line Jim, and I am not bringing religion into this, it is just plain wrong, because it just isn't natural. Period. Life is that bad for you out there in a heterosexual life, forcing you to go to the other side? The sanctity of marriage would be destroyed if an amendment is not passed

and now back to regular programming

Isn't natural according to whom? If it isn't natural why is same-sex "horseplay" so prevalent in the animal world?

And no heterosexual life is not that bad for me, nor am I "going over to the other side". I'm as hetero as any guy in the world and am comfortable with that. Equally I'd be comfortable with having someone in my family or circle of friends being gay.

And whose sanctity would be destroyed? Not yours certainly. Nor mine. (Not that I'm married yet.) How would someone else having a gay marriage affect the sanctity of your own? It wouldn't. It would affect the sanctity of your personal idea of the institution of marriage certainly, but that's tough shit. You have the right to believe that gay people are wrong, but you have no right to stop them living their life the way they choose. Personally I do have to wonder if anti-gay marriage people are that because they can't overcome their personal disgust at the thought of stabbing another guy's s***. (A popular phrase amongst conservative heteros. 😉) There is certainly no other justification for that feeling that I can fathom, unless it's because of offended religious principles.


You gave me your bottom line, now I'll give you mine...

Everyone has the right to their own views and their own opinions. Furthermore, everyone has the right to express their views and opinions, no matter how clever, erudite, educated, right, stupid, illogical, dumb or wrong they may be; without fear of being beaten into submission by someone else.
This extends naturally into how they want to behave and live. Everyone has the Creation given right to live, think, behave and talk however they want or feel inclined to do so... provided they do not seek to impose their moralities or views on someone else against their will.

This proposed new amendment sounds to me very much like it will restrict personal freedoms and the right to search for happiness. That alone should give anyone worthy of the name "American" cause for concern, no matter what their personal views on the naturality of homosexuality.

Just my

.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

ok, replace average with "normal"

ok time to piss in all your beers again!
but what the hell, i'm already being called (oh horrors) a homophobic!
*gasp* will my reputation ever be the same?!?!
typical, you liberals always stoop to the name calling.
face facts folks, homosexuals are NOT normal, period!
i think you all feel some misplaced association with homosexuals because you too have a secret in the closet. sorry, but tickling and homosexuality are worlds apart.
it's ok with me if you oh so sensitive liberal minded folks want to embrace homosexuality. no skin off my nose!
so why does it bother all of you so much that i don't? think about it ,why the name calling, the anger, the ganging up? could it be because i have the courage to tell the truth, and you are too terrified of being called unprogressive, or homophobic yourselves, to say how you really feel?

in other words (cause i'm sure i lost you) let me be a "homophob." in peace, and i'll let you be ass kissers in peace.. deal?

steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: ok, replace average with "normal"

ok time to piss in all your beers again!
but what the hell, i'm already being called (oh horrors) a homophobic!
*gasp* will my reputation ever be the same?!?!
typical, you liberals always stoop to the name calling.
face facts folks, homosexuals are NOT normal, period!
i think you all feel some misplaced association with homosexuals because you too have a secret in the closet. sorry, but tickling and homosexuality are worlds apart.
it's ok with me if you oh so sensitive liberal minded folks want to embrace homosexuality. no skin off my nose!
so why does it bother all of you so much that i don't? think about it ,why the name calling, the anger, the ganging up? could it be because i have the courage to tell the truth, and you are too terrified of being called unprogressive, or homophobic yourselves, to say how you really feel?

in other words (cause i'm sure i lost you) let me be a "homophob." in peace, and i'll let you be ass kissers in peace.. deal?

steve

Here's my take on things Steve. You have the right to think and say whatever opinions you see fit. You have the right to hold whatever personal morals you think you should have, and discard whatever ones you think are crap. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone has that inalienable right. Good for you for exercising it mate!

But you do not have the right to try and make someone else live according to the values you arrived at, if they don't want to. Now I'm not saying you did or would, I'm just making a point; you don't have that right. As you say, no skin off your nose if we want to embrace something you hate. Dammit buddy but you're right! It isn't! 🙂 It's isn't anything to you. You have your opinion, others have theirs. The world is full of differences and variations. It's something to celebrate, not disparage.
The point I think some of the others were making is this; personal morals should not be enshrined in law. Thinking someone else's sexuality is immoral is fine. Making something as momentous as a constitutional amendment that deliberatley discriminates against those people isn't. It seriously isn't! In fact it's right out of the lawbook of the Soviet Union, apartheid South Africa, Mao's China and Hitler's reich.

To some people things will be similar (being in the closet with homosexuality or tickling in this case), but with others they won't be. The only distinction is the perception of the individual. In your world, created by your conceptions and values, homosexuality and tickling are poles apart. My world is much the same. One is a whole different sexuality, the other just a variation on the hetero sexuality. (Which isn't to stop gays being ticklephiles of course.) But to others, the "in the closet" sensation of tickling fetishishes will be similar to gays being bottled up. One man's feelings don't make something law, no matter how strong they are.


To echo what Steve said, let's remember that name-calling is pointless. We've got a discussion on our hands and differing opinions to be bandied about. Let's do that without insults; it's more fun that way. 🙂

Jim - Who is thinking of working for the UN

 

[BigJim]

Thank you God...

... for the most enlightened, educated, erudite and spectacular post I've seen to date! Bravo, bravo and f***ing bravo again!

And then my mind boggles that I'm swinging back to the liberal side! LOL

Gay/Lesbian Marriages.

I'm for it. AS for it as much as I am heterosexual unions.

I have no religious qualms about it. This is a legal issue. I’m sure there are many religious groups who would have us change laws to fit a belief system. Let’s not even think about the fact that some people feel as adamant about dietary restrictions as a part of their faith as some Christian and others feel about homosexuality.

I view legal marriage as a contractual joining of two people committed to spending their lives together and being socially, emotionally and fiscally responsible to one another. That happens everyday. Giving the label of "MARRIAGE" simply makes it public knowledge! LOL They can't just up and scoot out so easily! It gives accountability! Talk to anyone who’s ever been divorced! LOL

Personally, I think there are more obviously apparent things that our government should be recognizing. Uhmmm....war, economy, homeless kids, unemployment, health care, little things like that, eh?

From the religious standpoint, if one defines the boundaries of marriage in a manner that is not open for variances, I think those in favor run the risk of countering the very concept of the bible that I respect. For those of the religious camp, God said that He alone is the final judge and jury. It is God who will decide the outcome. You can make laws, but if you are going to thump the religious texts as your guide, then you should follow all aspects of it. You may think He doesn’t approve, but are you so without sin that you are ready to condemn and judge someone for loving “the wrong person” because you’re uncomfortable with their choice?

It’s very muddled to me. Kinda like those little Jesus fish people stick on their cars then fly 90 through a school zone forgetting that part of the Bible says to obey the law of the land. I digress....sorry.

Now, as far as coupling being a natural or unnatural event, I don’t know. I know that a joining of two people to share affection is natural. To procreate, you need one of each sex, so that is unnatural in that it’s impossible. So we round back to affection and love. Would God rather see a child suffer a love-less life in an abusive home or possibly be the adopted child of two committed loving people who happen to be the same sex? I know that’s a tangent, but it ties directly to the rights of people to become foster or adoptive parents.

If we take away the right to recognize a legal contract between two same-gender people, we are slamming closed the door to anything positive that might come from it. To me that would just be sad and wrong. Much more wrong than any perceived threat that would come from Bob and Tom living a life together in rural Montana. Sheesh...is it really that threatening? Am I missing something?
Jo😕

 

[BigJim]

America is the land of opportunity! (for those who can afford it) Only in America can one strive to be what they want to be! (as long as it doesn't piss anyone off).
All men are created equal! (unless they like other men equally)

Homophobes are people who typically believe in an America that never existed. They relish the ideals of a strong and free America, but have never actually taken a stand for freedom. These are the convenient Americans. In their America, only people who think like them and act like them can be called true Americans.

I don't quite agree that this point confines itself to homophobe Americans soley, but I do agree with the general gist. Some of the more self-righteous americans out there should remember that the first immigrants in America went there to escape persecution. They went there so they could express their individuality in the way they wanted to. Now sadly (for those who are different), these people were rather puritanical and this philosophy has drifted into Americana. Now if anyone is anything but a raving conservative, they're un-patriotic. Or even worse, a traitor. The right to personal freedom has become the right to be like what the "Founding Fathers" thought you should be like. America has become no different to any country that restricts the freedoms of it's citizens, no matter what methods are used to do it.

 

[BigJim]

ST, the Bible is not a book of inconsistencies, it is the truest book even written.😀

I know I'm going off topic here, but that is a flat-out falsehood!

The church did a survey of the KJB in the 19th century and admitted publicly that they had discovered nearly forty thousand translation errors. Add to that that whatever might have been left of God's word had been bastardised and embuggered by selective humans without an ounce of divinity in their bodies, and you have one of the least reliable books ever written.

Jim - Ever the historian