funny how an entire sub-culture…

… who demands society normalize their dysfunction and claim to not be defined solely on their sexual orientation goes out of their way to segregate themselves.

From everything to vacations and travel, entire communities and religion there is a massive and subversive effort on their part to purposefully separate themselves based on the only unifying commonality of who they prefer to be sexually promiscuous with, while mocking us and then demanding our total acceptance.

"Pithy and so, so, true. If it were possible, I'd post a million of these ..."

#whyIstayed Why Women Stay In Domestically ..."
"All the best to you, Katrina! We'll miss you. Thanks for sharing your journey with ..."

Ten Years is a Long Run…
"Bon voyage on your new endeavours. And thank you."

Ten Years is a Long Run…
"I will miss your unique, funny, honest voice. Thank you for all the years of ..."

Ten Years is a Long Run…

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Charity. Good on ya.

  • puh-lease Thom. You know I make a keen observation. If homosexuals don’t want to be defned by that single factor than why the effort to celebrate it, parade it half naked down the street, and seclude themselves from the remaining 90% of the population. This post has nothing to with extending charity, which I point out, homosexuals do not extend heterosexuals. Quit being contrary for contrary’s sake.

  • Cheap shot, son. Sometimes the truth hurts.

  • steve

    Thom, How about the charity your fellow homosexuals showed toward the Mormons in California. Oh yeah, you didn’t have a problem with that. To quote you: “When a group or institution, religious or not, engages itself more and more in the political process, taking sides, there will be backlash.”Enjoy your backlash.

  • If illustrating your opinions calls for drawings of demons, and that’s charity, please, continue.

  • steve

    It is not a demon, it’s a fool. Get over yourself, stop being a damn nancy-boy, and take your phony sense of hurt elsewhere because that s*** doesn’t play well here.

  • Steve, seriously?Is being a Christian no more than a cultural affiliation? Pretty stuff?Paul said something about sounding gongs and tinkling cymbals, and having no love.

  • Homosexuals use all types of perverse imagery to illustrate their points and ridicule the Church. The “fool” graphic is tame in comparison. Again, quit being contrary just for contrary’s sake… unless you have something valid to add.

  • Kat, you assume that all homosexuals think and act the same way.And how is introducing a passage from a letter of Paul, who we celebrate particularly this year, into a conversation not valid?

  • Oh wow, dare I stick a toe into this discussion? I am the very married mother of five grown children. I enjoy this blog very much, admire the art and photographs. Though I seldom comment, I am a very faithful reader. But when I read an entry like this, I am deeply disappointed. It paints an entire group of people with a very broad brush. I am a former city girl and every year witnessed the Gay Pride parade as it passed our business. I never thought for a moment that such exhibitionism represented the entire community. It doesn’t. Do the “Girls Gone Wild” represent all young women? Good God, I hope not.Practice charity? Yes, on both sides. Start with yourself, the only person for which you have control. I am trying to imagine Jesus in this conversation….

  • Not that I am casual enough to presume what Christ would say in this conversation, but I am sure the Bible gives rise to plenty such examples. "Go and sin no more…" comes to mind. Far more harsh than anything I typed. Look, I see nothing shocking or attacking about this post. Broad generalizations are not so rare and shocking a thing to state. People with a reasonable amount of rationality will understand there is an exception to every rule when making such observations. However, I stand firm on my words. I find it complete & utter buffonery that the majority of homosexuals demand total accteptance and normalization of a disorder that only effects roughly less than 10% of the population and than demand the rest of the population NOT define them based soley on their sexuality…. yet turn around and make a very concerted effort to segregate themselves based SOLELY on the one common factor… their same sex sexuality. I am failing to see the controversary, other than the controversy lies in the truth of the observation.

  • Paul Nichols

    Boo hoo. Stay strong, Kat. The queers rail about “charity” only as a way of guilting us into acquiescence. They don’t want charity – they want the culture to just submit already.They hate those of us who call a spade a spade, a fool a fool, and a queer a queer.Cry me a river.

  • You shall know them by their liturgy.No, wait.You shall know them by their strong stance against sin in other. No, wait.You shall know them by their fruits.

  • Paul Nichols

    Well, we certainly know you guys by your “fruits”.

  • Tom Curnette:In all tradtional translations, and in accurate modern translations, the famous Pauline quote you refer to is “Faith, Hope, and Charity”. Charity being the english equivelant of the Latin charitas, and the Greek Agape. both of which are defined as the disinterested desire for the greatest good for another.Sir, you seek to use a poor translation to guilt us into accepting a life style built on one of the sins crying troheaven for vengance, and when we refuse to subvert the truth of our religion, you begin to, using curcumlocution and disingenous constructions, to tell us we are sinfull and wrong: Which is essentially what pisses you off, when we, in accodance with tradition, say founding your lifestyle on sodomy is wrong.You invert morality, using spurious quotations, to get us to give approval to your sinful and destructive lifestyle. You then, using an inverted morality, accuse us of being immoral.this inversion has been regarded for two mellinia as a sign of demonic influance over the intelect.

  • “Ignorant” Redneck, you can spell “disingenous” correctly, but not my (real) name, even when it’s right in front of you? Passive aggressive insults aside, one has to do more than parse individual words in translation. The context of the passage remains unchanged; it is love. This has been the “traditional” exegesis of this writing all along, as well as its synthesis with the larger gospel message.

  • (Actually, nevermind- it’s “disingenuous.” My bad.)

  • would it be "love" to let someone continue on path certain to lead to damnation? Thom, come on now. You & I both know there is a difference between what you are calling "love" and turning a blind "acceptance" eye on sin.

  • That does beg the question, Kat: whose responsibility is this?The Church has covered this already, with a lot more love than you’ve exhibited on this issue. At least the Church speaks with authority.There’s a difference between “turning a blind eye to sin” and stooping to the level of calling people names like some of your loving commenters have done.If you read what the Church says about this, this attitude of “f*ck ’em all queers” is nowhere to be found.You’ve missed my point all along. Say what you mean, and mean what you say, but do it in a way that you can still honorably identify as being a follower of Christ.I thought that you would have figured that out by now.Believe it or not, what you say, and what you allow people to say in reference, hurts people. If a gay person were to come across a couple of the comments on here, really, do you think they’d be running into the Church’s arms? Hardly. If I’d read it, I would have never came back.

  • No….Actually the point of this comment was make note of how homosexuals claim to not want to be defined solely on their sexuality… yet go out of their way to segregate themselves based on that sexuality.If homosexuality is so "normal" as they claim than why the effort?What you did, Thom, was turn this post into "ALL About Thom & His Feelings" and designated yourself The Homosexual Representative for the Catholic Church… which you too are speaking on NO authority. You then injected your opinions based on your persoanl feelings & attempts at justification. I made no attempts to quote Church Authority on the matter, only make note on a cultural obersavation.I find it interesting how you only chose to comment here & at Terry's when Catholics speak on issues regarding the immorality of homosexuals. I think you enjoy being deliberatly contrary.

  • Kat, thank you not only for the initial post but for how you have spoken throughout this combox.

  • Kat, this post had nothing to do with me, nor did I attempt to make it so. I simply offered that it might be better to think about other people before you say something. Like it or not, we’re all judged on what we say, and how we say it.Your main point- gay people segregate themselves. This should be no surprise as minorities do this frequently. Irish Catholic neighborhoods. Greek Orthodox neighborhoods. “Hippie” neighborhoods. Jewish neighborhoods. Chinatown. Little Italy. Koreatown. Hell, look at Ave Maria, Florida!I didn’t designate myself as “The Homosexual Representative” of anything. I dared to question you, offense of offenses, but it was your commenters who threw me in with the group that I was trying to stand up for. Of course I “injected my feelings based on my opinions.” That’s what you did, too! That’s what we all do, unless we’re speaking in an academic context, and I can safely assume that your blog is not that.If you’ll remember, dear, I used to comment here all of the time. And as far as Terry’s blog goes, if you would read some of his posts other than the gay ones, you would find that I comment on several different topics. I don’t “enjoy” being contrary, but I’m not reticent when it comes to speaking out against vitriol that’s handed out in the name of God.I’m sure that you’ll need the last word, and that’s cool with me. Go ahead. And rest assured that your cheerleaders will be there to back you up. But I’m done.

  • Thank you, I think I will take the last word since you’ve high jacked this post to support your own agenda.

  • For someone attempting to take the high road Thom’s writing is laden with traps and snares and not a few barbs. This is acceptable because Kat was the initial one at fault.Relegate me to cheerleader status, I guess.Meanwhile poor Terry, is killing himself to apologize for writing he need not apologize for, neither what he has said nor the way he’s said it. Suppression of truth under the guise of the call for an expression of love is what tolerance as defined by our present age is all about. A declaration of truth is an act of love though seldom will it be received as such.I have allowed myself to be pressured into silence on the Internet by my own weak nature that wants to be liked by everyone and by my fear of rejection. I have tried to love all souls and I have done it at the expense of expressing truth (I am referring to expressing it with all due charity). I am beginning to finally be done with that. Call it penance.

  • “This is acceptable because Kat was the initial one at fault.”BALK!

  • steve

    I dared to question you, offense of offenses, but it was your commenters who threw me in with the group that I was trying to stand up for.You didn’t question a thing. You made a passive aggressive statement and were called out on it. See, your cheerleaders over at your blog pat you on the back for being passive aggressive whereas readers of this blog don’t like it so much. As far as being thrown in with a group–um, that is your group. You identify yourself as a homosexual so what is your problem? You have no problem doing the exact same thing on your blog which you accuse Kat of on this blog. You are trying to be the typical homosexual bully by stifling comments from anyone that dares question the homosexual lifestyle, only you aren’t very good at it and you chose the wrong–Ignorant Redneck was not passive aggressive, he told you straight up.

  • Just a quick comment – I am neither Catholic, nor religious at all, but I have noticed the same phenomenon. The gay community wants to be recognized as a distinct culture, one that does not revolve around a sexual act. However the only actual thing that makes “them” any different from “us” is indeed, a sexual act. The amount of cognitive dissonance surrounding the community is really astounding sometimes. And this is a cheerleading observation from someone who really does not care what other people do in their bedrooms.