As I previously stated on Facebook, there are four topics that I now avoid discussing on any social media platforms: Abortion, Climate Change, Guns and LGBTQ+ issues.

The way I see it, it has become virtually impossible to discuss or debate any of these issues without the conversation dissolving into an abyss of bruised egos, hurt feelings and misunderstanding. I am NOT an expert on any of these issues. My opinion carries no more weight than your opinion.

Although I have staked out my positions, I am more than happy to discuss or debate any of the following topics with you in an off-line setting, preferably while drinking some craft beers or delicious coffee. I am always willing to hear alternative viewpoints — always ready to consider new information and perspectives, and ready to change my mind or outlook. Enjoy.

ABORTION:

Personally, I am opposed to abortions in almost all cases except when the mother’s life is in danger. That said, I also believe that I do NOT have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Thus, I am somewhat reluctantly pro-choice on this issue.

That said, I think it’s hypocrisy that we have the technology to detect bacteria on Mars and declare it’s a sign of life; and then say that an embryo or especially a fetus is not a living organism. It begins growing and developing from the moment of conception. That’s just science.

CLIMATE CHANGE:

I’ve written this before, and my position has changed very little over the past few years. First, Climate Change is real. Very real. The evidence is all around us and it is impacting, and will continue to impact, human life.

What bugs me about this subject is mostly centered upon the alarmist attitude of otherwise very intelligent people; and the sheer hypocrisy of those who often chant the loudest and want to impact my choices.

I am a huge supporter of renewable energy, including wind, solar and hydro projects. But that does not mean that all renewable energy projects are good. Some projects have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment, but for the most part I like renewable energy because it requires zero assistance from any other nation. It is truly independent energy. In some cases, I also support nuclear power and natural gas projects. [Disclosure: I have worked as a paid consultant on several renewable energy projects in New England]

I believe in being a good steward of our natural resources. I try to minimize my energy consumption. But the alarmists want to make my choices for me, that and the ever-growing bureaucracy of government regulation chaps my ass.

Furthermore, this issue is too often mired in fear and rhetoric, often ignoring science.

This ecosystem (Earth) is 4.53 BILLION years old. Think about that for a minute. We’re making declarations and pushing the panic button while ignoring the simple fact that we have basically NO idea about climate trends BEFORE humans began roaming the planet approximately 500,000 years ago.

Translation? Humans have been on earth for less than .01 percent of the earth’s life. Furthermore, we know (because science tells us) that this ecosystem has undergone numerous, significant and sometimes cataclysmic changes, sometimes wiping out various species, often referred to as “natural selection.” We’ve had Ice Ages, continental and seismic shifts, not to mention eons of volcanic activity that created huge dust plumes and particulate distribution all over the globe.

Bottom line? Our climate has been changing for a very, very, very long time and it will continue to change with or without us. I mean, really. Do you think you can alter the Earth’s ecosystem by driving a Prius? Do you think humans are powerful enough to somehow control or stabilize an ecosystem that has been evolving for 4.53 billion years???

Again, I think we should all strive to be good stewards of our planet and commit ourselves to better public health outcomes while also reducing global conflict by using renewable power, but I also think it’s still okay to drive a pickup truck, use a clothes dryer, microwave oven or a flat-screen television.

GUNS

I consider myself to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I do not believe that the Second Amendment — nor the First Amendment — is absolute. As a classic example, you certainly have the right to free speech, but you cannot yell ‘fire!” in a crowded movie theater; nor can you publicly threaten to assassinate the president or another person. Your FIRST AMENDMENT rights are not absolute.

The framers, I believe, were all too familiar with a tyrannical government and wanted to ensure that ALL power would rest in the hands of the people, not the state. There is ample historical evidence that the framers were not too keen on having a standing army, but saw the necessity of a citizen militia that could be called upon in times of need.

Thus, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

A lot of people conveniently skip over the first part of that sentence and instead focus on the last part regarding the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Second Amendment is important to both our liberty and security as a nation, but it does not give my neighbor the right to own a rocket-propelled grenade launcher or an intercontinental ballistic missile.

We have, what I believe, some common-sense limits. Academics aside, however, this issue has become a flashpoint in American politics. It seems almost impossible to have a civilized conversation about this topic because of an increasing frequency in horrific mass shooting incidents, many of which involve school-aged children as the victims.

I am as horrified and as sick as you are of seeing incidents like these happen. I too want something to change. Now. Right now. However, as hard as it may be, we have to put our emotions in check and work together and across the aisle to solve this problem.

What I find disheartening and a bit peculiar is that so many people focus primarily on the guns. Typically, these are people who don’t own firearms and don’t like firearms. On the other side of the debate, people (typically from the political right) say it’s not at all about the guns. They do a mighty good job of pontificating about mental health services (right up until it’s time to fund mental health services).

From my perspective, both sides of this debate are a little bit wrong and a little bit right. When we hear the news about another drunk-driving related death, we are outraged at the driver, not the vehicle he/she was driving.

Each day, roughly 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Data from the NHSTA shows that from 2010 to 2019, more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk driving car accidents. How many more?

Too often, when it comes to a mass shooting incident we miss (or perhaps ignore) the larger, more pressing question: Why?

Why does someone (anyone) feel compelled to slaughter a large group of innocent eight-year-olds? Firearms, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns, have been around a long time. But this is a relatively new phenomena in American culture, beginning sometime around the late 1990s.

Why are we so violent? Why is our country so far ahead of all other industrialized nations when it comes to gun violence? I think we ignore the why because it’s much more convenient to focus on the guns.

Bottom line: I think we need serious gun reform legislation to include limits on high-capacity magazines, tighten loopholes on the easy availability of firearms and require mandatory safety training. Even Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most conservative Republican president in the last 100 years, wrote to Congress in the early 1990s, urging them to take meaningful action in limiting high-capacity firearms.

This is not rocket-science. We can achieve meaningful and substantial reforms without taking away your guns. I also believe that an unarmed citizenry is a dangerous thing. History underscores my belief on that matter. [Disclosure: I have a significant mental illness and subsequently choose not to own firearms].

LGBTQ+

First, the good news. It is becoming increasingly easier for people to feel comfortable in their own sexuality, but this topic is yet another flashpoint of vitriolic discussion on social media.

My take? I don’t really see any negative impacts to allowing two men or two women to enter into a state-supported marriage contract. Numerous studies have demonstrated undeniable statistical data that reveals married couples are far less likely to be involved in crime or drug abuse and are far less likely to need government assistance and typically have a more positive impact than their single peers on regional economies. It doesn’t matter if the couple is same-sex or a more traditional heterosexual couple.

Look I don’t understand all the uproar and the wringing of hands about these topics, including gender identity. I am a middle-aged, straight, white guy. I don’t want to publicly discuss what happens in my bedroom, and I don’t care much about what happens in your bedroom, as long as it involves consenting adults. It’s really none of my business.

Yup, I do think there is a part of this issue that has become somewhat trendy. And I don’t like the whole “you’re either for us or against us” mantra. I think there are a lot of gray areas out there, and as a civilized society I think we can work out the kinks. Look, we figured out how to put a man on the moon, I’m relatively comfortable in thinking that we can address same-sex restrooms or trans-gendered athletics. As long as we can all take a deep breath and set emotions aside.

My default position on all LGBTQ issues is basically just be kind, tolerant and accept others who may be different than you are. I don’t need to fly a rainbow flag in order to be decent and kind.

That said, much of the emotional uproar on this particular subject focuses on children. Here’s my take: I think it’s perfectly okay and probably pretty smart to teach children how to respect diversity that they will encounter throughout their lives. Beginning, perhaps, in the fifth-grade, I think it’s okay for students to read books that focus on sexuality and gender.

At about this age, many children begin to have questions about these subjects, and it’s not always easy to have those discussions with their own parents or family members.

I never chose to be straight. My gay friends and relatives never chose to be gay. Either you are or you are not. A textbook or movie isn’t going to change that.

However, I am opposed to having these discussions with children under the age of eight. Any parent or teacher out there will tell you that seven-year-olds will gladly eat paste. Six-year-olds still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. Their brains are basically mush. They have little to no critical thinking skills.

If a six-year-old announces that he or she wants to marry their best friend, I would hope you don’t go ahead and book a function hall or send out wedding invitations to friends or relatives. For me, it should be the same if your seven-year-old announces that he/she wants to change gender.

You certainly can be supportive of that declaration without embarking on life-changing medical operations. You can address your child by his/her preferred pronouns. I think it’s okay if you allow a child (age 12 or above) to legally change their name. It can easily be changed again. You can be supportive and loving of your child but it does not require you to hit the operating room.

In Maine, I believe the age of consent is 16. Still a bit low, in my opinion. But if 16 is the age of consent, then it should also be the age of individual gender choice. I’m more comfortable with 18, or better yet 21, but we’re not talking about me or my kids.

At 16, your brain has not finished the formatting process that allows for critical thinking. Society says at 16 you are too young to vote. Too young to watch porn. Too young to enter into a legal contract and so on. You can love, support and nurture your children without introducing puberty blockers, hormone treatments or irreversible surgery.

But if you encounter an adult, or even your own child, who says they are gay, non-binary or trans-gendered why not treat them with anything other than respect or kindness?

Gay people and transgendered persons have been around since the beginning of human existence. Now, they are able to feel more comfortable and included in society. Even if your own religious beliefs claim that homosexuality is a sin, you can still choose to be kind. You can always be kind. That is a choice.

And that’s a wrap for the four dreaded topics of social media. Peace to you and yours.