The Spinning Pinwheel
|
Table of Contents Part 7 and Part 9 appear in this issue. |
| part 8 |
--- Original Message ---
From: One Man
To: Evanglical Man
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2024 12:06 AM
Subject: RE: Homophobia is a Sin
Evangelical Man,
Guess you are destined to be relegated to the same stack as the rest of the whackos. I’m really not surprised. You are down to pasting my words and supplying really weak arguments to counter them.
You can’t even seem to grasp my obvious statement that our two starting points led to irreconcilable conclusions. It is quite obvious to me that they aren’t, but yet you persist using your inaccurate moral compass as your guide. I point out the errors in your logic and you just heap out more logical fallacies.
It really isn’t worth it to attempt to communicate with you like it wasn’t worth it with Fat Toe. If you want to have open logical discourse I would be up to it, but you have to take responsibility for your thought processes not just shoving out a bunch of crap back at me that I time-consumingly have to attempt to straighten out. I suspect I won’t be willing to do it again for you, but one more time...
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.
You said: “...By your logic urine and feces could be great drink and food!”
I’m not really seeing how you make that jump that my logic leads to: “urine and feces could be great drink and food.” I’m not sure I even want to play along with your gross little analogy there. I never said or inferred any such thing. What I was trying to say was, that by your logic, only the food that fit perfectly in one’s mouth should be eaten. This of course isn’t the case in that we can eat a large variety of items. I myself don’t think I would like the taste of urine or feces, but I’m not going to stop someone else from consuming whatever they want.
You said: “People can have sex with animals too.”
People can and do have sex with animals. Boy, you sure like bringing up some sick crap, don’t you? Sex with animals is wrong. The ethics of that situation show that it is. Homosexuality is not bestiality, don’t get confused here.
You said: “Just because it is possible does not make it right.”
Right. That seemed to be the point that you were making with your “what is natural” talk. I don’t think it is clear what is “natural” or “unnatural” and if doing what is “natural” is always the right thing to do. Left to my “natural” impulses, no pretty woman would be safe. Again, not correct behavior.
You said: “Rightness is a human concept. It is what separates us from the animals...”
The concept of rightness and wrongness is what separates us from the animals? I don’t know about that. I tend to think that we are a heck of a lot closer to animals (being animals) than most people think. Further more, animals do have a sense of right and wrong to a degree. The Gamma wolf knows it is wrong to go for food until allowed to by the Alpha. The law being fangs and claws in this case.
You said: “An opinion based on your self-declared principles. “No harm,” you say? What about the harm done to loving heterosexual parents? What about the harm that will be done to the children of society who will then be forced to agree that you can love anyone — it make no difference. What about the harm done when those children come home to parents who still hold that sex is for traditional marriage? Your “do no harm” argument is laughable on its face. There is plenty of harm in publicly recognizing same-sex marriage by law.”
Man, what a rant. Too bad it is just that, a rant. Show me where the harm is, don’t just tell me there is harm. How do gay people hurt “loving heterosexual parents” or “children of society”. I really don’t see the harm. Why? Because there is none.
So, in your last paragraph you chastise me for experimenting with children. Got to bring in the kids, don’t you. Dastardly thing to do, but typical. So you insult my child-rearing knowledge and bring up the specter of your broken home as if that negates what I said. What I said was:
“Children raised in gay households may or may not end up anymore dysfunctional than children raised in a more traditional household. I tend to think the quality of life a child will have is based more on the availability of a positive, nurturing environment rather than the sexuality of their parents. Actually I would argue that children reared in a same-sex household could have a leg up on accepting diversity and could end up being more forward thinking than their other peers.”
I still stand behind that paragraph. In fact, I still stand behind my whole letter.
I had a gay coworker at the Air Quality Control Board before it was defunded. He was a nice, gregarious guy, kind of catty, but we got along well. Then he disappeared for a few months, rumors circulated that he had some kind of “head injury,” and when he reappeared his entire wardrobe and posture had changed, and he had a vacancy behind his eyes. He was a stiff little shell of his former self, and no more fun to be around. It was more creepy than anything else.
Until you pull off the blinders of your particular brand of religion you will continue to see homosexuality as a sin. I disagree with you most adamantly on this subject for the reasons I think I have made clear. I really don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on and I’m tiring of explaining the obvious to deaf ears.
One Man
STRAW MAN 2024!!! Not the homophobe!!!!
[NSA Note to File]
Date: September 30, 2024 8:48 AM
Agent: Todd Jenkins
“One Man” is raising a lot of pink flags–is his sobriquet “One Man” a plea for him to become “Two?” Basic Iron Theory holds that people only act/argue towards ends which inure to their benefit. SOP: analyze personal data streams for pink content.
(I have a hard time believing taxpayer dollars are well-spent on my analysis here; homosexual conduct is still a misdemeanor in light of Roberts Court only recent overturning of Lawrence v. Texas.)
[NSA Note to File]
Date: September 30, 2024 9:18 AM
Agent: [Confidential]
Agent Jenkins: Be advised that dissatisfaction with policy is NOT to be recorded in ongoing case files! You know a few courts still uphold Freedom of Information Act requests. Guide yourself accordingly and use appropriate reporting channels.
--- Original Message ---
From: Evangelical Man
Subject: Re: Homophobia is a Sin
One Man,
You wrote:
On the natural law issues, your logic is a bit off. If you say that because it is apparent that the penis and vagina are designed to go together that this means that no other sex is acceptable is a bit of a reach. By this logic many of the sexual acts that are quite common between men and women are unacceptable. Or to use an analogous example, one could say that the apple is designed by nature to fit perfectly in the mouth so all other forms of food are unacceptable. Your point here is a logical fallacy. If people are able to perform the act, it is allowed by nature.
My point is that nature’s design shows that 2 men or 2 women are incapable of real sex, because the obvious purpose of sex is reproduction. All else is the cream on top (no pun intended). Other forms of foreplay are the only things that these Same-sex so-called couples can experience. Nature by design has excluded them from real sex, because they do not have the right equipment.
By your logic urine and feces could be great drink and food! People can have sex with animals too. Just because it is possible does not make it right. Rightness is a human concept. It is what separates us from the animals.
You also wrote,
Let me be clear, my stance is not an opinion. It is an ethical truth based on the principle of “do no harm” not on any particular legal philosophy, if “equal protection” applies, so much the better. My standing is that the persecution and exclusion of gays is doing harm and is therefore unethical.
An opinion based on your self-declared principles. “No harm,” you say? What about the harm done to loving heterosexual parents? What about the harm that will be done to the children of society who will then be forced to agree that you can love anyone — it make no difference. What about the harm done when those children come home to parents who still hold that sex is for traditional marriage? Your “do no harm” argument is laughable on its face. There is plenty of harm in publicly recognizing Same-sex marriage by law.
The problem is that Same-sex so-called couples are not happy living their lives by themselves. They demand that all of society celebrate them. Let them have their chosen lifestyle, but let society promote what is good and right. And what they do is wrong. It has been held to be wrong for millennia. They are the ones who want to change the rules. They have the burden of proof.
Then you wrote,
Children raised in gay households may or may not end up any more dysfunctional than children raised in a more traditional household. I tend to think the quality of life a child will have is based more on the availability of a positive, nurturing environment rather than the sexuality of their parents. Actually I would argue that children reared in a Same-sex household could have a leg up on accepting diversity and could end up being more forward thinking than their other peers.
You are bold to experiment with children — the most indefensible. Your line of reasoning reveals how little you know about childhood development and the need for sexual modeling — father to son, mother to daughter, father to daughter and mother to son. By this I mean that a father shows a son how to become a man, a mother shows a daughter how to become a woman, a father shows a daughter how a woman should be treated, and a mother shows a son how to treat a lady. There is a psychological need for a male and a female role model in every child. Having been raised in a fatherless home from the age of 6, I am keenly aware of this. The role of a father and a mother are very different, and a child needs both.
Evangelical Man
Copyright © 2006 by Luke Jackson
