Adam and Steve

    For some reason, one of the biggest arguments in the ever-growing "Gay Debate" is that the Bible says "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," ultimately saying that God originally created man to like woman and vice versa, so that's the way it should be today. Now you could possibly argue that I'm looking into this argument too literally, or that this argument is actually referring to the Bible as a whole condemning any atypical, non-heterosexual relationship. And though I hope to discuss all major Bible passages saying that eventually, for now I'll just take on the argument as I see it plainly. However, if you are particularly interested in that right now, I definitely recommend watching this video, as it remains one of my greatest inspirations today.

     But all that being said, let's dive right in, for there are quite a few points to be made.

     The first point to be made is that Eve was made from Adam and for Adam to be his ideal partner. It was God's will that they each be made to be together forever. The main reason (other than companionship and possibly God just being nice) being that they were destined to someday repopulate the earth. And obviously, this is something that could only be done by a couple made of a man and a woman.

     So of course Adam and Eve had to be straight; if they were meant to have so many children, they would have to at least like each other. That only makes sense. However, to follow the story of Adam and Eve today would mean that the main purpose of any couple should only ever be to reproduce and populate the earth. And based on that argument, there is no worth or purpose in infertile couples, or even in living as a single person.  Not to mention that argument would undermine the lives of all asexual or eternally celibate people, or anyone unwilling or unfit to bear and raise children. Because if the first people were born to reproduce and be married, then all people should. However, this is obviously not what the Church teaches by any means, and it's not a moral belief many people have today.

     You could still that the point wasn't them having children, but them being romantic at all. That the point was that if a man should want a relationship, it should only be with a woman. The problem with this is that it only works because Eve was created with the sole intention of being Adam's one perfect companion. They were created to be perfectly suitable for one another. But this is the same for any gay person. God created them uniquely to like someone of the same gender because that's who they were meant to be with.

     Granted, there are exceptions with this, like if a straight girl fell in love with another girl, or a gay man falling for a girl, or anything of the sort. Just to clear this up before anyone misunderstands. The point is, if God created a soul mate (if you believe that) for someone, then it was his intention that you be with them. Regardless of gender. Adam and Eve was by no means of love story, but if you want so badly to treat it like one, this is the point to be followed: God makes people companions. Whether it be platonic or romantic, humans are a social being and that's what God wanted. We should not shun love where we find it, no matter the form. And we should never deny anyone the love that they have found, even if it isn't a love just like what you or anyone else has experienced.

    But all of that serious argument aside, the story of Adam and Eve isn't a true one anyways. The Bible is so figurative that a lot of it isn't actually real. This could easily have been made up by someone the day before the first edition of the Bible was written up. Maybe they were a hetero-elitist who thought of course the first humans were straight. But God is God. He can do whatever he wants. Who's  to say the first humans weren't both girls. Maybe God gave one the divine power to impregnate the other, and then she gave birth to a son and God just said "well that was a lot of work. On the next batch of generations, let the male kids do it. Save me time to do other God things." The thing is, you weren't actually there. So stop bringing Alicia and Eve into it.

Importance of Life

     Before stating any opinions on this topic at all, it should be understood that I'm not going to talk about the importance of life as a two-sided argument of pro-life verses pro-choice. In a common debate, those are typically the two sides, but it's not really that simple. The typical Republican would be considered pro-life, being that they tend to be against abortion in at least most forms. However, most Republicans are also for the death penalty. And by their own standards, shouldn't life being considered from conception until natural death? Pro-life, by its definition, would mean being for all life. So to take that stance would mean being against not only abortion, but also against war, nuclear weapons, and the death penalty. For an easy example, take a look at the Republican Mitt Romney. He did say no to abortion, but he also certainly did say yes to war. So the title pro-life would not be accurate, but rather he (and most Republicans) would be simply anti-abortion.

     Of course, it would unfair to deny any form of near-hypocrisy (I use this term very lightly) in the democratic party, being that they can argue with abortion, but are usually against killing criminals via the death penalty. The difference, however, is in the wording of "pro-choice." Meaning that, in regards to abortion, you aren't necessarily for it, but don't believe in taking the option away from people.

     But of course, the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely terms. And words don't matter, it's the opinions and actions. For this reason, I'm not going to come right out and say I'm on either side.

     Getting definitions out of the way, we can break the argument down to a series of varying beliefs, because, again, that's all that's relevant in the end.

     War: there aren't too many people that genuinely like war. Some, sure, but most people tend not to start wars out of boredom. There's some reason for them. Not always good. The two solutions are typically to fight back until peace can be made, or give up and be conquered or killed. Fighting probably isn't the best option to begin with. But talking it out and listening to each other often isn't practical and doesn't work out too well either. So do I like war and killing and violence and think it can solve things? No. Nor does the end of a war ever equal the end of a struggle. But sometimes wars happen, and they aren't ideal, but can be effective, or the only option can be fighting back. It's not about liking it, it's about understanding it and what the goal ultimately is, and then having a plan to achieve that goal. And that I can understand. World peace isn't happening any time soon. I've accepted this. Moving on.

     Death Penalty: contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is actually a lot more expensive then life imprisonment, and more complicated due to the amount of trials involved. Because death is permanent, so that's not something you should get wrong. However, people have been killed and then later found innocent. And then what?

     Some say if the crime is horrid enough, the punishment should fit it. If someone kills 50 people, they also deserve to be killed. This is an ancient way of thinking of justice. I disagree. Perhaps I assume people can always be better than they are; that they can change. For the same reason, I don't necessarily believe anyone should be put in jail for a hundred years, with no chance of getting out do to significant change or successful counseling. No, not everyone will get better, and if they can't then they shouldn't be freely roaming the streets. But, if it's been 40 years and they actually have improved significantly, why not give them a chance to live a free life, provided they're still willing to leave prison after all that time and it's a decision approved by all their doctors or therapists or officers watching them.

     With the death penalty, there is no chance for that. There's no going back. It's justice without a chance or hope for someone found guilty and takes away their entire right to life.

     Yes, people can be terrible. But then it becomes hypocritical for someone to judge and decide they deserve to die. So give them a lifetime of being confined and monitored to make sure they can't do anything terrible again. If they can't change, they stay there forever and that's it. But give them an opportunity. Deciding they must be killed is neither practical nor just.

     Abortion: this is not an issue of yes or no to abortion, but rather if it should be allowed or not. This cannot be a circumstantial thing. You can't say it's only allowed in cases of rape, or within the first month, or if the baby could not survive, or if the mother's life is at risk. These things are impossible to judge or monitor. How are you going to pinpoint exactly when a child was conceived or if there is any chance they could survive or not? And we already have a big enough debate over what just rape even is. How do you only allow it for certain people with absolute proof, and then make a 15 year old who couldn't prove they were raped and cannot support a child or afford to carry it, carry it to full term. There's too many different circumstances, and you can't just pick certain ones. You allow it or you don't. And because there are so many times when this is necessary, we have to allow it, or we're potentially holding back people from what they could do without a child. You can't stress the worth of all people, and then take away the right's and dignity of women. 

     Many would say that adoption is always the best option. And it could be, but only with high adoption rates and knowing that the child actually gets a good home, which we don't. It could be just as bad as the child's birth parents if they couldn't financially or emotionally be in a place to care for another life. Furthermore, carrying a baby to full term could put horrible stress on the mother. It could be a constant reminder if she was attacked, or it could force a bond with someone she knew she could never keep, or just cause terrible depression. Even if her life wasn't physically in danger, mental danger can be just as bad, and that's not something any doctor could easily gauge.

     In any case, the world is not under populated and we are not in dire need of any child that could possible ever live, no matter the cost. I'm not going to say kill off all babies because they aren't doing anything but weighing us down. But if you have to choose between 10 cells who could not ever survive or a mother who could have to go through the hardest time of her life if she had to carry a child, are they really equal?

     Some would say yes. It's an opinion, fine. And maybe this is just me trying to "live in the now," but it might be better to worry about those currently alive. Like how it's impossible to just think the future will be great, and then do nothing at all to make that happen. What's important right now is what's happening right now.

     You could say just limit abortion to a certain term. The problem there is determining when someone has met their cut off date. See: the Arizona law that makes a girl pregnant weeks before she's pregnant, to close the gap and make it harder to get legal abortions. If a baby is carried to full (or nearly full) term, however, and could at that point survive just fine, at that point I would probably recommend putting it up for adoption. And never force a mother to keep it. But then, never force them to do anything for that matter.

     And while I'm on this topic: should Church-run hospitals be forced to give abortions? If it's strictly run by the Church, no. Simple as that. Same as the principle that churches should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings. If we're separating Church and state and have religious freedom, let them do what they want. The choice should be theirs whether they say yes or no. But, this is religious freedom. Just as a church shouldn't have to perform an abortion, the Church should say no to all abortions because that is their belief, even if not everyone else's.

     In summary: everything is circumstantial. The number of circumstances are way too plentiful to say yes or no either way. And it's not fair to try. Deciding either way isn't an easy task and it's nearly impossible to try to put yourself in that situation. The woman would be going through a lot, they do not need someone limiting their options or judging them or constantly monitoring their progress and telling them how much time they have to make a decision. It's a hard enough thing to begin with, and you can't decide for them, so don't try to.

For this topic more than any, I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me. As always, you're allowed. This is me voicing my opinions, you're free to voice yours. It's only fair. However, just know that my mind's set. This is a topic where I'm sure many would love to change it. By all means, comment away if you want, but just know that, well, this is it and I'm not trying to start a debate in the comments. But, again, I can't stop you from speaking your mind, if you want to, so go ahead.

Gun Control

     Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary schools last month, there has been a new spark in the debate over gun control laws. Some people would argue that America's gun policies should make guns more readily available. This would make it so that, in the event of another killer attacking an office or school, there could be a worker there with a gun ready to take them down. Or even, on a smaller scale, people should be allowed to have guns even just in their homes as a self-defense tactic to be used against burglars, armed or otherwise. We'll call this argument "Side One".

     Still, many (myself included) would argue the opposite: that mass murders occur because guns are already too easily available for anyone. And that even if a person does not go out and legally buy their own gun, it's still too easy to get one. We'll call this argument "Side Two".

     A major argument Side One is that people will kill with or without a gun. That a gun can be stolen, (regardless of the fact that most guns used in shootings are obtained legally) even if laws are strict, and that we should be prepared for this. Or that, even without guns, people can just kill with other weapons, such as knives. And it'd be easy to shoot somebody at long range if they're using a short range weapon, so we need guns for protection. If we didn't have guns, people would just find a new way to kill, and it'd just become harder to keep ourselves safe.

     The fears of people with these views do make perfect sense. However, they lose validity when we can just look at other countries that are already way ahead of us. One excellent example is Australia.

     After a mass shooting in 1996, Australian lawmakers had had enough, so they revised their gun laws. They didn't make it impossible to ever own a gun. Instead, they just made a more thorough process that any adult would have to go through to get one. This includes the need for a license,  only given if a person has a significant reason for a gun (not self defense) and has secure storage for the gun (so to prevent easy theft). In addition, each firearm has to be registered. Different firearms may only be owned if a person has a specific license for it.

     The reason this is relevant to America to even just consider is because Australia has not had a single mass shooting since that law took place 17 years ago.  Of course, violence did not completely disappear. But homicides in general did drop by 59%, and suicide dropped by 65%. And there was no increase in either home invasions or violence not involving a firearm. So as it appears, they didn't suffer any sort of backlash from their new laws.

     It is important to remember that America and Australia are two difference countries, with America being much more violent. Australia had 11 mass shootings in the entire decade preceding 1996. Meanwhile, the US has had 18 in just the past year. This isn't counting the thousands of deaths by guns that aren't considered mass murders (about 12,000 just in 2006).

     But Australia isn't the only example we have. In Japan, the laws are much more strict, including a mental evaluation and a class with an exam. They've only had 11 murders by firearm in 2006.

     The point here is that studies show that less guns means less murders. And that even with our differences, we have to change something. And since stricter countries already have set such a fine example, why not consider following them? What we have to lose is what we are already losing-- hundreds of lives lost to violence every year. If we could stop it, shouldn't we try stopping it in a way we know has worked? It has been proven that if it's more difficult to get a gun, people are less likely to kill, no matter what. So I say that we do make it harder. And that people with guns have them both registered, and kept somewhere safe so that it is impossible for any person that is mentally unstable or has a bad history or just should not have a gun in their possession to ever get a gun or to ever have any opportunity to take anyone's life, including their own. Tragedy can be prevented, so I think it's only necessary to take the steps to do so.