Archive for November, 2010


Hello all,

The Pope going around promoting his new book.

Here is an intersting article on the pope himself.   Some background information.  It is typically the Church’s position that many things about humans and human nature are typically deemed as evil regardless if it is  natural or artificial.  Such things can range from sex/sexuality/gender to contraception (abstinence as the exception) to cheating to what you have to do to being a Catholic.  Until today because there has been a drop from the thaw of Catholic’s rift.  Now do not mistake me or hold your breath because it is nothing big.  In fact, it is equivalent to barely having your toe out line (all things considered of all the world’s problems in my opinion).  The current pope,  Pope Benedict XVI,   said in his new book that (according to the article),  that “…that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.”

WOW AND ASTONISHING!!!!!!   I never thought I would hear the pope say that condom use was alright.  It is the type of news that is no big deal to the rest of the world but huge for the news.  The moral dilemma to the church is preventing pregnancy aka life at and after conception.  Ok  lets back track to basics that since already the church already defines life at (and certainly) after conception.  Condom use is used before conception, so technically before life begins.  To get back to the article, the pope says it prevents the transmission the AIDS virus (which is the exact opposite position it took previously).  Now I admit, I do commend him that he is beginning to realize the importance of condom use and the role it plays in the prevention of the spread of HIV.  But the pope believes that condom use is only exclusive to male prostitutes who do not want to become pregnant and therefore not a moral issue.  Like I said only a toe out of place when saying that condom use is only good at preventing HIV in regards to male prostitutes and less of a moral issue.

But the pope does not arrived to the final realization in this confessional on condom use.  That condom use is not exclusive to male strippers who do not want HIV.  In terms of people, anyone can use condoms or other forms of contraception (beyond abstinence).  This leads to many reasons for their use while still enjoying a part of us that makes us human.  Reasons are different and can vary such as prevention of unwanted pregnancies (and preventing abortion which, for this reason, should be hailed),  prevention of many other STD’s beyond HIV/AIDS, personal reasons, etc.

I feel for the safety of humans, the people (regardless of safe or unsafe sex), everyone should not only have this option, but should not be condoned or condemned for condom use.   It is not immoral or a devious act, but it is moral and taking responsibility for themselves and their partners.  It is empowering a person to make the right decisions and responsibility to do something that is only human.  I only come to hope that this pope and future pope relaxes their current stance on sexuality as a whole because while living in the present, the church is living in the deep past and is currently confusing and hurting so many people.

I do encourage good postings and please do share your thoughts.  Please do not knock or insult anyone as this is a sensitive subject.

Steve

Hi all,

Here is an interesting article on tiger endangerment:   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_saving_tigers

Enjoy!

Steve

Hi all,

Published from the Associate Press and printed in the Las Vegas Review Journal say that there was a poll conducted in Salt Lake City.  Appearently 44% of the people who were polled agreed with the Mormon church, more specifically “with Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer”, that homosexuality can be overcome as opposed to “31 percent disagree and 25 percent were unsure whether same-sex attraction can be changed.”  What is meant by “overcoming homosexuality” is that somehow not only can you change your sexuality, but specifically changing from any sexuality to being straight aka heterosexual.  Now the article says that this comes from more partisan lines that most republicans plus 8% of democrats say that sexuality can be changed and most democrats plus 13% of republicans do not believe that sexuality can be changed.  Also, the poll suggests that there is a split among religion (and Utah is known to having a high population of Mormon people).  The article says that “55 percent of Mormon respondents believe it’s possible to change same-sex attractions compared with 20 percent of non-Mormon respondents.”

Honestly, let me say this:  I am gay myself.  I never had any real feelings for women sexually, nor have I ever wanted to be with a women.  To me, it’s not a choice.  I have always had an attraction to men and it’s not something that I would want to change about myself.  It’s not a phase or something I could “just get over” or change my mind about.  It is just simply who I am and I would not have it any other way.

When I read this article this morning in the Las Vegas Review Journal, I was absolutely taken back by what I read.  I feel that we live in a world and especially in the United States in 2010 that there is so much close minded, unaccepted, intolerance kind of philosophy that still exists.  I hear of stories, in the US of A alone, that (specifically relating to the GBLTQ community) that us gays are discriminated against.  Think of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”.  Recently, Gates says he wants the Obama administration to repeal the decision that allows gays to serve openly.  There are cases where young gays are committing suicide such as Tyler Clementi that were “outed”, bullied, people trying to “change” them.  It is appalling to me to hear these stories that just because someone did not accept a person for who they are.  Certainly politics and especially religion does not have a right, what so ever, to tell a person that this is who you have to be to be a good and upstanding citizen.

I certainly hope that in the future that we get past our differences and be more accepting of those who are different from ourselves.  I may have biases of others just like anyone else, but I try to put them aside and try to accept others for who they are and I do hope that others do the same as well!

Steve

Pres. Obama says….

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/03/obama-addresses-nation-democrats-lose-house/

Hi all,

I was keeping track of the Nevada US Senate race with Angle and Reid (and mutely others) because I’m a resident of Las Vegas. I got an email that the subject heading that read something like “Harry Reid won the US senate seat”. So I went to foxnews.com to see what the latest stats were. The latest at 10:25PM PST was that Reid had 50% of the votes (272,201 Votes) and Angle had 45% of the votes (244,629 Votes). And the best part of it was that only 46% of the total precincts were tallied.

Then, it hit me! I thought “Dude, hows that possible?!?!?!?! How can you declare a winner when only 46% of people voted?  That’s not even half.” Yes, Angle has been trailing roughly 35,000 votes at any given time give or take another 5,000 either way. But dude what the heck is going on?!?!?!?!

How can you declare a winner when not even half the votes were counted and the other 54% can have a HUGE, HUGE impact on an election?!

This is so undemocratic, I feel, when you call a winner in an election when not all votes were tallied. It really doesn’t matter who the candidate is or what position is for.  The point of the matter is that every single vote should be counted before a winner is declared and after each one is counted, then the announcement of the winner should be made.  It is equally democratic to vote as it is to declare a winner after all have been counted despite the 24 cable news stations reporting on it.

Steve