The Spinning Pinwheel
Flame War

by Luke Jackson

Table of Contents
Part 5 and Part 6
appeared in issue 226.
part 7

A motley group of participants in an Internet forum take widely differing positions on various social issues, including a war in the Middle East. Note the date: 2024.


Sex

Homophobe,

Strange that someone would adopt the repressive Repug agenda without having the Christian mythology to fall back on.

Your metaphor is more properly called an analogy between overeating and overscrewing. Like the Evangelical Man, you seem to be claiming that sex evolved (rather than was designed, like EM) for procreation and therefore the natural purpose of sex is procreation.

That’s definitely an archaic mindset. I guess having sex with a condom is out of the question. Or hand jobs. Or oral, anal, or anything besides missionary unprotected sex with a female of childbearing age. Is all of this “aberrant?”

You must have a remarkably dull sex life and lots and lots of kids. I thought this kind of unreason was limited to the Thumpers.

Your comparison to overeating is very strained as well. People have the full right of overeating to their heart’s content, their health be damned. We don’t place any legal limitations on their rights to marry, etc., and even have some ADA laws requiring wheelchair access and other accommodations for their fat asses. I don’t see how the fat suffer from the same persecution as the homosexuals, who are usually deemed “aberrant” only by turning to absurd archaic mythology.

Liberal

Homophone wrote:

I read a lot of this, and skipped some (too long). But I thought something came to the fore in the way of an interesting metafer. Do you know what a metafer is?

Food and sex.

While I believe our impulses for each were designed by nature, not a god, it matters little in the following.

We must eat food (for nourishment) to survive. We must have sex (to propagate children) to survive. The difference is individual survival v. survival of the species as a whole.

When one eats beyond what nourishment requires, we become obese. We do so to satisfy natural urges nature bestowed (eating causes pleasure, or abates pain). Can we agree that obesity is not a good thing? Lack of food causes eventual death of the individual. The pain is there to warn us.

When one has sex beyond what is necessary to propagate children, it is to satisfy urges bestowed upon us by nature that cause pleasure. I don’t really qualify the lack of sex as pain, and it probably isn’t there, but is arguable. Probably because when one does not engage in sex, it does not lead to death of that individual. But I do believe that oversexing has adverse effects similar to overeating. For the following purposes, let’s define “real sex” as only that sex used to propagate children.

Engaging in sex with anything or anyone beyond the need to propagate is similar to overeating. The problem is that the downsides are so entirely different, one is more tolerable than the other. Undereating and undersexing have quite different results, especially for the individual.

But as a society, we cannot exist as individuals with a lack of food, since each will die. Lack of sex would have little impact on most individuals, though it would have an eventual impact on the society as a whole if it became ubiquitous. But does anyone really believe that everyone would choose this direction and cause the human race to cease to exist? I doubt it. As such there is not much of a downside in allowing it to occur.

And if it’s not by choice, but is genetic as some would argue (I can’t help what I am), then it is simply another of nature’s mutations that have helped us to evolve as a species. It obviously is not a successful mutation like the opposable thumb. It is as much of a mutational dead end as conjoined twins or a 12-legged frog.

My point has always been that:while it is tolerable as a society, and doesn’t really hurt me per se, incorporating formally into our legal system our tolerance of any form of sex beyond “real sex” will allow it enough force to actually impact me as an individual. The only way this could happen is with $$. I do not want to financially subsidize activity with which I do not agree. Yet my taxes support blowing up other societies. My taxes are spent on many things with which I disagree. That I allow it to happen doesn’t mean I like it.

Most people don’t smoke. Hence the “majority” votes to tax tobacco. Most people aren’t homosexuals, hence would probably vote against anything that would formalize it. That is very different than tolerating it. I believe most people do tolerate it. They even attempt to understand it better so as to make informed judgments. I think EM is doing that by the very fact he engages in such a conversation.

While I disagree with the fundamental Christian approach, I think I get to basically the same end opinion. Though I may be a just a skosh more tolerable. I don’t think the law should have anything to do with it, particularly federal law which should remain defending our country from foes, both foreign and domestic. States should have the will to do whatever they want, as long as the majority of the populace gets to vote. Like the mobs that moved to Nevada and were subsequently able to get gambling and prostitution legalized, I think all aberrant sexualists should move to some state, preferably California, and help effectuate its legalization along with whatever else they can do to further their perceived cause.

Otherwise, let’s turn to the metafer of overeating and let’s see what we can do about your fat ass, One Man. Maybe in an act of compassion we can slice off chunks and compassionately send them to starving cannibals across the seas. And send with that some nice liposuction juice in which to fry their alternative foods and vegetables that their culture might hesitantly accept.

Liposuction... hmmmm... if we use yet another metafer here... maybe we can kill two birds with one stone? Just kiddin’ dude. Can’t let such a serious discussion go by without a smidge of mirth, and at least one reference to your ass.

Cheers,

Homophone

One Man wrote:

The Evangelical Man,

OK, I’m done with you. Should have been done a while ago, but I keep holding out for a glimmer of rationality, obviously, none is forthcoming.

You said: “The primary and essential purpose of sex by definition is reproduction.” Can’t argue that point, but then you launch into a logical fallacy that says that therefore all other purposes for having sex is wrong. Sorry, neither I nor any other rational person is going to buy into your misdirection on this point. Specifically this logical fallacy is called “Affirmation of the Consequent.” You rant along this line for quite a while, but to no avail since your starting point is flawed to begin with.

You said: “...You(r) assertion that one has an ethical right to do what feels good...”. I never said any such thing. What I said was that as long as both parties are willing, no harm is done. I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth. This type of fallacy is known as “Straw Man,” the basis for your derogatory nickname for our Democratic presidential candidate.

Basically what you do is assert that someone said something (easily disproved) that they didn’t actually say and then disprove it as if they had actually said it. Getting a bit slimey here.

You said, “Ultimately same-sex relationships are about selfishness...”. Well this is patently untrue. By your logic then, couples that choose to be childless are selfish. I could argue that our world is over-populated as it is, and that having a child at this time is a selfish act.

Whether a relationship is selfish or not is not determined by the sex of the members, but by the commitment to the other individual in the relationship. Gay relationships will be selfish or unselfish just as non-gay relationships will be just as selfish or unselfish depending on the individuals in question. More illogic on your part to make your point.

You said: “...you are still just into self-justification for your own purpose...” More lies and false allegations to promote your unfounded attacks. I’m not into self-justification as evidenced by the fact that I’m not gay arguing for the gay cause. Tell me, where is the benefit to me in all this? There isn’t any benefit to me other than the fact I can hang my hat on being right on this particular issue due to the fact that the ethics of the situation are clearly in my court.

Since this line of discussion has been reduced to an illogical streams of ranting interspersed with logical fallacies and personal attacks, my work is done. You have nothing, and I’m afraid that you are embarrassing yourself with your futile attempts to shove your brand of god and your brand of morals down everybody’s collective throat. Save it for the brainwashed masses at your church, they at least will buy into your illogical crap.

I’m sure you will toss another rant my way, but don’t expect an answer. Unless you can open your eyes to the harm your stance causes there is nothing further I can do to convince you of the error of your thinking. I’ll save my breath for people whose hearts and minds are not blinded by centuries of wrong thinking. I have to see the consequences of your thinking every day, as I drive by the pink triangles cleaning up on the side of the freeway. And I’m sure you don’t want to know how they’re reprogramming so many into straight Christians behind closed doors — must be God’s will, eh?

One Man

STRAW MAN 2024!!! Not the Homophobe!!!!!!!

---Original Message ---
From: The Evangelical Man
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2024 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: Homophobia is a Sin

One Man,

You wrote:

You said: “...nature’s design shows that 2 men or 2 women are incapable of real sex, because the obvious purpose of sex is reproduction...”

OK, real sex versus what? Fake sex? What the heck are you saying here? Sex is sex. Sex takes many forms and has many purposes. Sure reproduction is one of them, but it isn’t the only reason to have sex. That is just whacked in the head to think that the only reason to have sex is for reproduction. Your point is not a point and it has no bearing on the subject.

The primary and essential purpose of sex by definition is reproduction. Without it all biology ends in one generation. This is obvious by nature. This is real sex. All other sexual activities are foreplay and afterplay — quality enhancements to the real sex. But gay and lesbian sex perverts lift these activities out of their proper context for their own selfish reasons and desires.

Nature (Creator God) designed real sex primarily for reproduction for the survival of the creature’s kind so that it is compelling by natural desire. This natural desire is designed to draw individuals into coupling relationships to form families — father, mother and children. The real sex bonding is designed to foster the bonding of the father and mother in relationship with each other as a life-long relationship to provide a stable home for the children and to foster psychological security for the children.

The Same sex drive that brings the couple together in compelling fashion can lead to outside sexual satisfaction by either party to the detriment of the bonding of the primary relationship and to the family. Therefore moral guidance is required for the good of the family and society (families grouped together in community).

What makes sex good is NOT if it feels good, although most often it does. What makes it good is if it enhances the overall design of nature and purpose. I maintain that premarital, extramarital and non-heterosexual relationships fail to meet this test, and therefore are NOT good. In fact the very basis for them are substitutes or perversions of nature’s design and plan.

All of this flows from a realistic evaluation of the nature of sex in its primary purpose (reproduction) using reason and logic. You assertion that one has an ethical right to do what feels good is obviously selfish at its core, which is not surprising. Despite its design of purpose to be giving — giving in producing a new creature (a baby), giving in serving the needs of the partner — your philosophy ultimately comes down to — it is what I want — it is about ME. This is selfish by definition. No amount of window dressing can hide this fact. This kind of sex is by nature somewhat empty, because it fails to have the potential to fulfill nature’s design for sex — the fostering and bonding of generational families for the propagation of the kind. The perversions and substitutions are mere attempted justifications for the wandering conduct that misses the target to try to say I’m okay; I’m good. Again we are back to selfishness.

Ultimately Same-sex relationships are about selfishness — what I want — not what is good for society, for others — but what I want. I deserve the relationship that I want. I deserve the feelings of parenthood. I have rights! I, I, I.

Yes we come at this from VERY DIFFERENT perspectives. Ultimately one has to evaluate — what is the basis for decision? Who has the ultimate right? “Do no harm” leads to justifying one’s own conduct. If nature has a discernible design, then there must be a Designer. He has the ultimate right to decide what is good. We can discern from His design what is good — that which fulfills or leads to the fulfillment of the design. All else is NOT GOOD.

If you cannot or refuse to see this, then you are still just into self-justification for your own purpose. This is really a question of who decides? Who has the right to decide? The creature? Or the Creator? As the creature, we want to yell out — “It’s ME.” This is our basic selfish nature. But who really has the right?

Mankind is a selfish creature, but he cannot thwart God’s Design forever. You can see it now: how so many are returning to the Christian faith and principles that this nation was built upon. The homosexual communities of San Francisco and West Hollywood seem to have disappeared overnight, as their denizens return to the arms of a just and loving God.

Even in my own congregation, we have a few members who formerly practiced these homosexual acts before becoming born again in Christ. I’m sure that your coworker finding salvation DID create a distance between you, as extreme atheists like you are deaf to the language of true faith. True Christians hate the sin, but love the sinner.

The Evangelical Man


Proceed to part 8...

Copyright © 2006 by Luke Jackson

Home Page