Homosexuality is the emotional or sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.

Acts of love (sex) between two adults of the same sex are almost always consensual. These acts and those who practice them are invariably condemned by almost all churches and religions – not the least by the Catholic church, who call for any and all kinds of sanctions against homosexuals.

Paedophilia is the sexual attraction of adults to children.

Acts stemming from this attraction (sex between adults and children) is almost never consensual. These acts are universally condemned by society in general, and is seen as criminal… but not by the Catholic church it seems.

It simply beggars belief.



Where the rules of a specific religion are given precedence over the rule of law, where religious custom supersedes morality, common sense, or even decency, there is the likelihood of this happening.

History has shown, theocracy does not work, especially for the benefit of the wider populace. It does not matter the religion, if a religion rules, it does not tolerate opposition, it does not tolerate scrutiny, it does not tolerate anything different from itself..

Though it may tolerate this – http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/02/saudi-preacher-spared-after-raping-killing-daughter/

In the wake of the conditional Lance Armstrong confessions to Oprah Winfrey , My question is, why is this such a big story?

How can one interview with a cyclist who is a (now confessed) drug cheat, be virtually the number one news item right across the world.

He is not the first professional cyclist (or other sports-person) to have been found to be using performance enhancing drugs, that has become almost commonplace. So why is Lance Armstrong any different?

Is it the magnitude of his victories that make this such an important story? Winning the Cycling’s biggest event on seven times, and not being tested positive for performance enhancement substances. But not everyone is into Road Cycling…. but people like a good story to believe in.

In the late 1990s an American road cyclist named Lance Armstrong (who by this time had won two stages of the Tour De France – one in 1993 and one in ’95) was diagnosed with testicular cancer which had spread to the lungs and brain. He overcame the cancer to return to competition in 1998. this would be a wonderful and inspiring story in itself, but Armstrong then won the Tour De France in 1999… It appeared almost ‘miraculous’.

He was placed on a pedestal by those who wanted to believe that Armstrong was something special, that he was different to those other riders who had been discovered to be drug cheats… and Armstrong kept winning the Tour De France, and kept passing drug tests… and from that pedestal, he could do little wrong… so it seemed. Started  charities (i.e. Livestrong), attacked and sued those who accused him of being a drug cheat, confirming the belief many held in him… after all, he was passing test after test – there was no proof.

If something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

And now the façade is removed, the pedestal smashed, and Armstrong is exposed, shamed, discredited, and may yet be convicted. The world is upset and angry at Armstrong’s behaviour and deceit, and his actions deserve condemnation… but let us not forget that he did not assume the pedestal he was on by himself. He was (to a point) placed there because so many believed in him, and wanted to believe in something that logic, common sense, and experience said was not so… and behind that façade of belief others had in him, he could lie, deceive, cheat, purger.

Armstrong performed those acts that he has confessed to, but the unconditional belief many had in him and their suspension of logic, helped build the stage for the performance.

US gun laws are a semi-automatic jaw dropper.

The NRA arguing that more guns will stop shootings, is like McDonalds arguing that more food will stop obesity.

I have not posted for nearly a year. The usual parade of human misery, stupidity, and ignorance, interspersed with moments of clarity, humour, and light, has passed by with such regularity that my desensitised mind has just let it by without mention… But the latest outrage from the United States must make the most numb heart scream in pain.

Some of the details are known. A man shoots his mother, apparently with one of her weapons; then takes her other guns (high-powered semi-automatic etc.), and thus armed as if for war, goes to a local school, shoots young children (some several times), killing 20, and teachers who try to protect them.

Intentional mass murder is a difficult crime to reconcile with, even when the victims are adults. But when the targets of the murderer are young children, the intensity of revulsion to the act is heightened. It strikes at a primal place in the heart, and the pain is deep to a fundamental level , and like a wind-driven bushfire, it overcomes our sensibilities, for a time at least.

But amid the shock and pain in the wake of such an outrage, this moment could be a watershed, a moment of inevitable clarity for the United States and how to deal with its relationship with guns.

We know what happened in Newtown, we know the where, the who, the when, just not the why… not any why… and therein are the issues.

The actions of the murderer are so outrageous to the consciousness of our society, we cannot see any sense in those actions… It is a senseless act, therefore it may be assumed there must be something deeply wrong with this person QED… so is this largely a mental health issue?

The mental state of the murderer is one why, but the other question of why did/could this outrage occur is to the access to high-powered guns with extended magazine capacity.

Last Friday, the same day as the school attack in Newtown occurred, a man walked into an elementary school in central China and attacked 22 children with a weapon. Same day, same action, same targets, but a different weapon, and a different outcome. The weapon in the China attack was a knife, and all survived. Gun laws are far more strict in China, and access far more difficult. Therefore, is it the gun laws in the US that are a contributing factor in the episodes of mass shooting that seem to occur with metronomic regularity? 30 since Columbine in 1999.

I do not believe that anyone in the US will ever try to remove all guns from the general population, not unless they wish to see blood in the streets; for Americans are fiercely in favour of the 2nd amendment to the US constitution which grants the right for citizens to bear arms. But having the right to bear arms, is not a compulsion to bear arms for self-defence, or to create a personal arsenal of numerous guns that may include high-powered military assault rifles. There are nearly 89 guns per 100 Americans, making access to dangerous weapons easy for the angry or the disturbed.

The outrage in Newtown may be a moment of clarity, where Americans can see while they have the right to bear arms, there needs to be controls on that right, so that weapons of war, and large magazine clips need not be on the streets.

The act to keep these powerful weapons available, is almost as senseless as the acts of some of those who get access to the guns…

and the metronome keeps ticking…. tick, tick tick chik-chik BOOM.