Light and Shadow

The arguments about politics can grow heated because they are very essential ("foundational") arguments.  They are truly arguments in support of life versus arguments in support of antilife--of good v. evil.  

Trains No Eye

This subject recurs so often because it is such a powerful modern expression of good v. evil.  Advocates for trains no eye causes of various sorts are advocating for evil--with behavior that seems to have no explanation, and is certainly quixotic as well as hypocritical, for they are themselves alive; as they have themselves been babies.  It is like a free woman who wears whatever she wants and would never cover her hair advocating for Islamic immigrants--perhaps stupid and hypocritical etc., yes, but more importantly, the use of a condition that is itself expressly against for what it advocates.  

Only the living can commit suicide.  If it some point, a person thinks, "Ugh, no more," and does that, it might be sad, but there is no hypocrisy.  However, if a living person uses the resources of a society to live (like, eats food that came from the lifecycle i.e. a grower/farm), then advocates for life being what an entity chooses as an independent, unbound entity (orgasms that don't support children should be treated like those that do (gay marriage, trains no eye stuff, etc.), borders suck even though skinning people is assault, and so forth, there is a hypocrisy.  

So, what are trains no eye people doing intimately?  Frictive rubbing against bodies; mutually pursuing orgasm.  The reason that pairs well with evil is that the pursuit of orgasm, the desire for frictive rubbing against another person, are desires people feel because it causes them to do things which can result in more humans--babies.  Like Jesus supplanting all the desirable imagery of goddesses, telling young men to focus on Him rather than on women or families, it is a move to make reproduction--life--happen less: i.e. death; evil.  

Babies

Consider a young man.  

Now, he's looking at something; what could it be?  

Now, there's often an end result of that type of pairing, and if you have a million of them, more, that end result increases.  Same thing with a star: you mash enough hydrogen together you get starfire; if not, just cold dead space.  

That is what the trains no eye battle is about: life v. death, or more dramatically put light and shadow.  

The value of individual pleasure versus life can be deceptive.  As we can see, even within a meiotic species, people can advocate for stymying meioticism itself; can argue that the inherent urges to meiotically produce should be the sole focus--i.e., that desire for orgasms should facilitate respected pairings regardless of child-benefiting pairings.  

Sterile

But what if they can't have babies?  A common argument is that families aren't specific to marriage because not all marriages are meant to, or even can, produce children.  However, what is being neglected here is that such traditional marriages--old couples where the woman is way past menopause, he's sterile for Reason XYZ, etc.--mean that marriage is about loving partnership to pursue togetherness.  Not so; a society that promotes the type of relationship that occasionally results in babies appearing is showing little humans, monkey-see-monkey-do-style, how things work.  This is why pre-Christian marriage, even if sterile, supported life--sent the message to babies "do this," and why advocates for evil (even though they oft don't think they're doing that) want the young to instead learn about drag, trains no eye, etc.  Monkey-see-monkey-do.  

Compare that to some other thing people can see: a popular show about people winning awards for the best jetski crash across tables set up by the waterside.  If that grows popular, and however-many billion people get to watch those jetski cataclysms being presented as funny, how it brings people together (he only met him because they both hid in the boathouse when all the fountains started acting weird), the rate of idiots jumping jetskis into lakeside tables is going to appear.  Like the profit motive against which socialists keep battling, monkey-see-monkey-do is fundamentally human.  

What hath God wrought?