Monday, April 12, 2010


And Karl.
Karl Lagerfeld is one of the very last emperors of haute couture (Chanel), yet the tres influential German born maestro made a couple of controversial statements regarding the international agenda promoting same sex marriage and same sex adoption of children.  He's against it.
“I’m against it (gay marriage) for a very simple reason: In the 60's, they all said we had the right to the difference. And now, suddenly, they want a bourgeois life,” Lagerfeld recently told contemporary youth culture magazine, Vice. “For me it’s difficult to imagine—one of the papas at work and the other at home with the baby. How would that be for the baby? I don’t know. I see more lesbians married with babies than I see boys married with babies. And I also believe more in the relationship between mother and child than in that between father and child.” - Source 

See - not all gays are nuts.  Mr. Lagerfeld only looks eccentric - he's quite nice however - he just happens to love menswear from the 17th century.  He definitely makes sense here - I've been telling gay people this for years - especially those pushing for inclusion in the Catholic Church.  Hello?  Any self respecting sexually active homosexual can't really want to be so square and homogenized, right?  (Well some might.)  Nevertheless, today there are some very vocal gay people who seem to crave some sort of old fashioned normalcy, hence they opt for a hip "Little House on the Prairie" lifestyle.  They want their own version of traditional domesticity, a place at the table on the PTA, while trying to take over the pulpit, like twisted little church-ladies, ranting:  "Gays would not do naughty things if they were accepted like straight people, and all the stereotypical stigmas were outlawed."  Oh yes they would George slut-in-the-bushes Michael. 
Karl is absolutely correct: "suddenly, they want a bourgeois life!"   (He might have added a bit from Karen Walker:  "Good Lord! Don't they know what that'll do to the fall line?")
Anyway, how Stepford-esque.
Vogue redux.  (Love how this song starts out.)


  1. If you look to Karl Lagerfeld to speak to gay issues, you might as well look to Randall Terry to speak for the Church.

    (And it's about time you posted a real picture of yourself. I'm loving the condescending, slightly constipated grin. It matches your gloves.)


  2. Hey - I'm not that old.

  3. People who identify themselves by the manner in which they engage in sexual activity are not to be taken seriously. It's a clear case of lack of maturity. In my opinion it's just plain weird.

  4. I will say--several of my homosexual male friends have VERY good taste and style when it comes to clothes...and theywill tell you straight-up if something looks terrible on you..when I was prepping for interviewing fo rEngineering jobs they made me over--hair, clothes, and makeup and I looked --and felt--like a million bucks...the latest stylist convinced me to go blonde instead of batling the grey, and a more modern hairstyle...fabuloso!!

    Now I just need to get a decent pair of shoes....Jimmy Choos??? Yeah--when I win the lottery...


  5. Aceman10:38 AM

    I totally agree with you Adrienne!

    Consequently, other than my dog, there are very few that I can take seriously, but he's neutered so that isn't an issue for him.


  6. I just read that Kitty kelly says Oprah is asexual... no wonder she doesn't know who she is.

  7. Aceman: Our dogs are neutered as well...point well taken (people think we're neutered here, also, but that's another story:<)!)

    You know Terry, Karl has some very good points.

    I have doubted that people in same-sex relationships wanted to "mirror" heterosexual couples; I think the innate desire to be "parents" may be genuine, but the whole thing about "we're just like everybody else" is just shite.

    What I am aware of, and please do not crucify me for this, it's just my plain old stupid opinion, is that same sex relationships do NOT have the same qualities as heterosexual (as strange as heteros can be, at times!)...what I have read is that a male=male couple will, after a period of time, not want to be sexual with one another, because they actually become friends and feel that somehow their sexual congress is "incestuous" or harmful...they become more like siblings than a couple. This is where promiscuity can enter into the picture; they have other "sexual" partners while remaining together in a domestic situation.

    Now I have no scientific, sociological evidence here (sorry, Thom and AJ!); but I think we have to be realistic about this and just say that homosexual relationships are different than heterosexual relationships and leave it at that (even Michaelangelo Signorile would affirm do I know about him...I read...A LOT:<)!
    Could be wrong about him, I'm no expert. But Camille Paglia might also agree!

  8. Fr. - excellent - thanks.


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.