Sunday, August 06, 2006

Good Lord Beakerkin Goes PG-13 or People who live in Stones should not throw Glass Houses



Lets go into the basics of intimate behavior. There is just one activity a heterosexual couple can engage in that gays can not. Thus the purpose of that activity is procreation. Hold then why do couples use interventive methods comonly to prevent procreation. Moreover there are plenty of marriages without children due to infertility or choice. Then there are couples who wed long after procreation was a distant memory.

The bottom line is depending on your morality or place intamate activity is a for of communications between two partners or a hell of a good time if one is more sleazy. The midevil notion that women were not supposed to enjoy sex is antiquated and out of date. However with intimate behavior comes responsability but that is another post.

Gay couples and straight couples can perform the act made famous by Onan. Onan is not Conan's brother and it is not translated properly. The act I am refering to is called self pollution, or spanking the monkey or choking the chicken. Note there are no Duck references. These are euphamisms for manual activity on ones partner or on ones self. 98% of people reluctantly admit to having done it and 2% are confirmed liars. We do know what the bible says about taking matters into our own hands. Yet we look down at those with an alternative lifestyle.

Then there is the act that Bill Clinton made famous. Both Gay and heterosexual couples engage in this act. Most of us hetero sexuals have engaged in this activity.
Are we going to single out gays for activities straights do as well.

Then there is the act that placed Sodom on the map. Sorry to let you in but many heterosexuals engage in this as well. This is not the only act that people with alternative lifestyles perform contrary to popular opinion.

Moving ahead to what is deviant how many of you engage in postitions other then the one deemed appropriate by missionaries. Well in an earlier time you would have been labeled a deviant. Thus morality and what is considered appropriate varries with time. Are we going to single out one group of people who do not perform a single act that heterosexuals perform as well.

People have to be what they are. It is increasingly evident that there are biological aspects that play a factor. Are we going to return to the middle ages when handicapped people were deemed as cursed by god.

Then there is extramarital and premarital sex. Most people do not wait for their wedding. Many people do not hold their vows sacred are we going to toss them out of church or only gays who are being themselves.

Now one is entitled to view scripture in whatever manner they chose. Certainly there are many who do take a literal interpretaion of these verses and nothing else. However literalism is one of the things we are fighting Jihadis over.

How many of you would eat lunch with a gay coworker? It is not contagious and one is not going to start likeing Bernadette Petters and Bette Midler out of the blue. We live in a society governed by civil law and not theological canon. I have zero problem eating luch with a gay coworker done. It does not change my identity nor do the prattle of the less enlightened bother me.

Many of us have performed the same acts gays have and have engaged in behavior deemed at one time or another deviant. People who live in stones should not throw galss houses.


nanc said...

i look down on NO one and yet do not have a monkey OR a chicken to choke!

nanc said...

also, if you cross an ass with a horse you come up with a mule - the end of it's line - choo-choo - all aboard!

beakerkin said...

Lets see you can lend your husband a ahem helping hand and visa versa.

These comments will be funnier the the post.

Mules may not procreate but they make one hell of a work animal or so I am told.

nanc said...

i'm married to a man and we will perform any sex acts deemed possible for a man and a woman that are physically possible with the exception of taking the garbage in.

what are you getting at here, beak?

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

You wanna see the donkey show?

Anonymous said...


You can cut it any way you want. Rationalise it to Sodom and Gomorrah and back, and if you are a Judaeo/Christian type it is STILL A SIN.

Jesus taught us forgiveness, love, tolerance..., BUT HE DID NOT THROW OUT THE LAW AND THE COMMANDMENTS.

Where does he tell us to IGNORE SIN and LAW breaking???

Those who sin are to be helped. They are NOT to be held up as good examples.

There is a great multiplication of "styles" due to the continual BOMBARDMENT with this subject thru the media. Without our EDUCATIONAL process most of us would never have the vaguest idea of even THINKING to try most lot of this stuff!!!

Children are being introduced to the ideas and sexualised at TOO YOUNG AN AGE. They are not ready to even BEGIN to address what is happening to them or others in the raw manner the MSM, Educational System, and PORN industry is shoving down their throats.(figuratively and literally)

Remember the admonition to MODERATION? What about our current society is moderate at all in the promotion of sexuality???

The Puritans may have been extreme in the other direction, but, we need to get a lot closer to their side of the question than where we are NOW!!!

Keep using that same wobbly LEFTIE logic and I am going to start wondering if your crusade against the Commies is really a psychological thing to cover up your heart felt support of them!! ;>)

Anonymous said...

Beakerkin says:

"People have to be what they are."

And if I am a homicidal maniac, serial rapist, Satanist, egomaniac, embezzler, adulterer...

Be real. Unless there is serious chemical imbalance that is diagnosable or Physical damage you just gotta suck it up and accept that you can and should control yourself in a manner acceptable to your chosen society.

Yes, people can be taught to accept it. WHY??? What contribution to the gene pool or society does this life style choice make??? It is a selfish choice that excludes the society.

Why should Society change itself just because a very few people, for whatever reason, decide that they PREFER a certain type of activity. You can LOVE whomever you want, just don't have SEX with them unless you are married. Oh yeah, and marriage is between a man and woman as made abundantly clear in our Bible which we all purport to believe in.

Just because the current society is becoming fallen why do you want to argue that we should just get over it and go along with it??? No DAMMIT, I am not going to accept bestiality, pedophilia, and all the other perversions that debauched people who have lost their way can come up with!!!!

We have Justin as the almost perfect example of why we should have respect for these poor people.

Of course, all I have to do is walk 2 blocks to Golden Gate Park and just about any time of day in any weather see the part of the LIFESTYLE that shows why I do NOT have respect for it, the ANIMAL part. The personal satisfaction that has nothing to do with friends/family/society/G-D. The chase of the next orgasm. The better orgasm. Not comfortable? Here have a drink and relax and we'll get right to it. What, that isn't exciting enough, well, let's try this stuff in this book. Ok, let's include a few more people. Still not there, OK, let's smoke/shoot/sniff/inhale...

Sorry, but there are far more gays in this extreme than in the Justin mode. I refuse to support a lifestyle that is so destructive AND is specifically banned by G-D.

There are 2 books I would suggest that everyone read for insight on this subject. The first is "The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose On The Most Influential "Scientist" Of Our Time" by Susan Brinkman and "The Marketing Of Evil" by David Kupelian.

Anonymous said...


are you COMPLAINING about not having a monkey or chicken to choke?? I am sure you and nancpop could go down to the store and buy them!!!

Oh yeah, let me give you ALL a HAND


OOOPS, sorry, I guess you should now all go to the clinic since I gave you the CLAP!!


Anonymous said...

Somewhere it MUST STOP!!!

The Merry Widow said...

Or "whipping it", that was popular in the 80's. My late and I were'nt into sphincter spelunking, though different positions were fun. Clintoning wasn't a biggie, matter of fact, I can't even count on one hand the times. My late thought it was degrading to women. A considerate gentleman. That still left a wide playing field to play on! And play we did.
Good morning, G*D bless and I'm awake! Thanks for the warning, I am drinking my coffee and was spared a spew emergency!


beakerkin said...

Mr Beamish and Anon.

Intimate relations is predicated on the notion of two consenting partners. As animals and children do not have the ability to consent that argument becomes moot.

My " crusade" againgst Communism may confuse younger types. Traditional liberals were anticommunist as well. This changed in the eighties with the election of Commie stooge mouth pieces like John Kerry and Tom Harkin. Much of the black caucus is also more red then black.

nanc said...

beak - o.t. - fyi - book review of "shadow party" at fpm today.

Always On Watch said...

Just so you know...

Your PG-13 post and the discussion on a previous thread did not offend me. I was out of touch with the blogosphere over the weekend. Otherwise, I would have commented. As it is now, I'm trying to catch up with a backlog of emails and comments to read at my own site.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I can only speak for myself, but it is the churches that are becoming receptive to "tolerating" abominations within them - changing or ignoring their doctrines as needed to accomodate the unfaithful - that throws down a stumbling block, and worse, creates empty pews.

Justin's position on gay marriage is respectable. Marriage no, civil unions yes. He understands that marriage is a religious tradition / sacrament that should not be tampered with.

I just expand that unwillingness to see Judeo-Christian traditions turned on their heads by "gay marriage" to all of the Judeo-Christian community traditions concerning sexual behavior.

Go ahead and do your thing, but don't call your thing my thing. That's all it boils down to.

beakerkin said...

I can live with that Mr B

AOW we will resume G rated fare after this post. The creative use of euphamisms was an excersize in creativity and restraint.

Farmer John said...


The fallacy of your argument lies in the fact that the standards for heterosexual actvity have been declining as well. You begin your argument three-quarters of the way down the slippery-slope in order to justify going down the remaining fourth. If you were to read Freud, you would learn just how far they've fallen, and in just how short a time. And if you were to read his Totem and Taboo, you would understand the reasons that lay behind the archaic standards and its' impact on human development and civilization.

MissingLink said...

Not that I want to get involved in this area.
The main argument here, I guess, is not 'how' but whith 'whom'.

Always On Watch said...

AOW we will resume G rated fare after this post. The creative use of euphamisms was an excersize in creativity and restraint.

I don't shock easily. :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you Farmer John.

The Merry Widow said...

Nicely stated, FJ! The standards have been depressed for generations and what we are seeing is a natural progression of society! Unfortunately, try as we might, we are unable to maintain the standards of our forefathers, as we get technologically more advanced and living standards get higher, we have more leisure to "get into trouble"! A child raised in circumstances that are less "luxurious" tend to be more realistic about life compared to one raised in the lap of luxury! An only child tends to be less realistic, generous or a team player. Unless the parents work at putting them in situations that teach those qualities. We tend to be a bunch of spoiled brats! Until reality hits!


Elmer's Brother said...

I have not problem having lunch with a gay person. But Beak if a heterosexual male gives a guy a "hummer" will he still be hererosexual...?

beakerkin said...

Elmer a man engaging in that behavior would be considered Bi at the very least.


If we started your version of defining morality upwards about less then 10% of the population would conform. Shall we persecute people for Onanism or recognize it as somewhat unexceptional behavior.

The point is that we are still governed by Civil law and any act performed by gay men can and is comonly performed by heterosexuals.
I am not endorsing this behavior but it is not out of left field.

Elmer's Brother said...

Then I agree with Felis it's with whom.

Farmer John said...

No, I don't believe in persecution of any sexual conduct that doesn't involve minor children or use of force.

But I also don't believe it is necessary for a society or culture to embrace or honor any form of sexual activity that does not serve as a preservative to it.

The old fashioned one-wife-for-life, no whacking the weenie, face-to-face, no birth-control, no abortion archaic Christian standard served a number of purposes that today are largely ignored (but served as theme for many a Greek tragedy). It may be true that many of the "reasons" for them may have been made "obsolete" by new fashions and a changed environment, but that does not mean that the new fashions are without novell consequences and that efforts at understanding those consequences cannot be undertaken.

I think Herbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization" represents a rather bleak, though flawed, insight into a deliberate attempt at dissolving a traditional nuclear family. I think that the consequences of certain unconstrained sexual activities can be much more drastic than even Marcuse realized.
Caution - graphic. Serial Sex Killers.

beakerkin said...

I am certainly not advocating the Marcuse pantheon of breaking up the family. I am advocating respect and civility for others that live differently. As far as Onanism goes it is likely more abnormal to go back to ancient mores.

Farmer John said...

But it also might help cure society of its' needs for instant gratification and bring back the concept of spannunsbogen.

Its funny how a little tension can make the complete trip all the more worthwhile. ;-)

Anonymous said...


you persist in asking whether we should PERSIST IN PERSECUTION of people who do not meet the requirements of the Bible.

Virtually everyone here is Christian.

The point is not to persecute but to teach a better way.

Anonymous said...

You also keep speaking of us being under civil law.

That civil law used to make much of of our topic illegal.

Discussing whether we should CHANGE THAT LAW BACK OR NOT would be more interesting.

Discussing how the Activist Judges have affected the Civil Law without Legislation would also be appropriate.

nanc said...

tension is good.

nanc said...

golf swing still bad.

more practice!

Farmer John said...

Try keeping your head down and spread your legs a little more.

...and always remember... you won't go blind if you golf by yourself.

I'll be quiet now.

Anonymous said...

Farmer John,

I hear MR John Brown Stain is an expert at getting his head down further!!!!