United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Children raised by gay couples thank Dolce & Gabbana for supporting traditional marriage amidst Elton John’s boycott
Source:
Life Site News
URL Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c ... edium=email&utm_term=0_0caba61
Published: Mar 20, 2015
Author: Thaddeus Baklinski
Post Date: 2015-03-20 23:35:25 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 41920
Comments: 187
March 20, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Six Americans raised by homosexual parents sent a letter of support thanking openly gay fashion legends Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana for their recent remarks defending the traditional family. Gay activists, spearheaded by singer Elton John, have condemned the pair and urged a boycott of their fashion line after they told the Italian magazine Panorama that they oppose gay “marriage” and adoption, find in vitro fertilization unnatural, believe procreation “must be an act of love,” and that “the only family is the traditional one.” The letter, published in Tempi this week, says the six signatories – five women and one man – "want to thank you for giving voice to something that we learned by experience: Every human being has a mother and a father, and to cut either from a child’s life is to rob the child of dignity, humanity, and equality." "We know that you will come under tremendous pressure, especially now when both Italy and the United States are being pushed to override our concerns for our rights to a mom and dad, in order to please a powerful gay lobby," the group said. They explained that it was their experience that, "Nobody receives more vicious attacks from the lobby than those who come from the gay community and question its policies: children of gay couples just as much as the gay men who defend them (like the two of you). "You have shown yourselves to be extremely brave. You have given us great inspiration as all six of us prepare to submit letters to the US Supreme Court against gay marriage." "We want to praise your courage and thank you for your inspiration," the signatories said, and implored Dolce and Gabbana "not to surrender when the backlash grows in intensity." "If you back down from what you said and apologize," the group concluded, "it will leave the children of gay homes even more vulnerable and discredited. It is important for our sake, for the sake of Italian children as well, that you not apologize or capitulate. Please support the idea that all children need to be bonded with their mothers and fathers. It is a human right." "It's not us who invented the family," Dolce said in the recent interview in Italy’s Panorama magazine. "You are born and you have a mother and a father. "Or at least it should be so, that's why I'm skeptical about what I call the sons of the chemistry, synthetic children, wombs for rent, seeds chosen by a catalog. And then, let's go to these children and explain them who is their mother. Would you ever accept to be a daughter of the chemistry? Procreation needs to be an act of love."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 151.
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
Interesting story even if I'm not sure why D&B is considered so stylish. Most of this fashion stuff is wildly overhyped.
Shocking that you don't have some of their fashion in your closet:)
Me and Elton are boycotting D&B.
And me and the Duck Commanders are boycotting Vera Wang!
Me too. Now I just have to figure out who Dolce & Gabbana and Vera Wang are.
It's scary, ain't it? Never hoid of Dolce & Gabbana, but yes, I have heard of Vera Wang. (Do I see a show of manly, unmanicured hands for exploring the world of clothing designers and judging runway models?)
Only child molesters support queers adopting children.
Though the "enlightened" human secularists and libertarian extremists seem to support it, unfortunately I hear even some brain-washed "Christians" supporting this crap.
Well, that's organized religion for ya. Meanwhile, the nature of several billion years of Hetero-sexual evolution stands in defiant self-evidence.
What is this you're babbling about now. Oh yes organized religion. As opposed to what unorganized chaos everyone is their own god. Screw that. But feel free to babble on. I don't think any christians support this. Maybe the call themselves christians, but that doesn't mean they are. Kind of like if you thought of yourself as smart.
Doesn't look very "organized" when it sanctifies the abomination of nature, does it Mr. Religious super genius. Which side of the perverted sun-fence is the Pope perched on today? The evolutionary history of heterosexual reproduction OTOH, that appears to have plenty of organization. America's Deist founders believed in that sort of self-evidence, and its perception in free minds. Maybe something else they had in mind was the fact that self-evident natural organization didn't stop religiously petrified Useful Idiots like you from burning folks who shared Copernicus' observations. Thank God America's founders had the wisdom to try to protect Americans from THAT.
How about this. I'm tired of you and thinking about banning you. I'm thinking about that because of your piece of crap attitude. Because you offer nothing to the forum. So next time you ask me a riddle instead of talking plainly. I'll just wack you. You will not be missed. So instead of your crap quote from above. Why don't you tell me what you mean by teh abomination of nature. Because you make these assinine comments and never back them up with substance. So lose your riddles or lose your posting privileges.
I mean the same thing that motivated the actor who portrayed Gandalf the Ghey to remove the pages mentioning the Abomination of Nature out of hotel bibles. http://content.usatoday.com/comm...ips-pages-out-of-bibles/1 The same thing that typifies the perversion of nature espoused by homosexual activists and their ilk who seek to further the Transhumanist / Postgenderist agenda. http://www.google.com/search?q=transhumanist+postgenderism The same homosexualist doctrine that's being embraced and preached in a significant and growing number of organized religious purviews.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...ositions_on_homosexuality If they teach contrary to the Bible then they aren't Bible followers now are they? Did you now know that not everyone who proclaims themselves to be a christian is in fact one.
If you ask the parrots in their rainbow pulpits they'll all swear up and down they're "Bible followers". Such has always been the nature of the organized religious farce; and that nature is no different today than when Romans 1:25+ was written. It was that nature about which America's founders observed: "FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS" Same ol' temporal Ba'alshyte, different municipal toilet.
If you don't put your faith in Jesus. Then your faith is in cow shit. To put it another way, If your faith is not in Jesus your faith is inferior to mine, and I in no way respect it, in fact I spit on it.
VxH worships at the altar of...TOM JEFFERSON. (how messed up is that??)
I think Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable man. He did many great things for this nation. But he isn't God.
No one takes away anything from TJ's intellect and accomplishments. But no, NOT a "god," NOT a "revolutionary" (as parroted by TJ Kneepad VxH), and most certainly only one of several driving forces behind the establishment of the new American Republic. Those who financed, organized, provided tactics, and fought for Independence were vastly and overwhelmingly...CHRISTIAN. VxH is a shameless revisionist historian who spits in the eye of the actual American Founders as well as that of Jesus Christ.
Franklin formulated a presentation of his beliefs and published it in 1728.[121] It did not mention many of the Puritan ideas as regards belief in salvation, the divinity of Jesus, and indeed most religious dogma. He clarified himself as a deist in his 1771 autobiography,[122] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin The record of his taking communion was spotty.[16] Ministers at four of the churches Washington often attended wrote that he regularly left services before communion. When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church, in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington completely stopped attending that church on communion Sundays.[17][18] Long after Washington died, when asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!"[19][unreliable source?] Nonetheless, it was also not uncommon in those days for churchgoers to pass on participating in communion.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion While Paine never described himself as a deist,[82] he did write the following: The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God.[79] But then, disingenuous parrots of your ilk have already demonstrated your disregard for historical accuracy by attempting to exclude Thomas Jefferson from the circle of revolutionarily influential philosophers. Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”) “The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said. http://www.texastribune.org/2010/03/22/sboe-removes-thomas-jefferson-blames-media/
The Spam-Riddler strikes again!
Why don't you and RedLegDribbler tell the class again how Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine weren't deists?
Name calling makes you look weak. As I stated Franklin more aligns with Unitarian. A Unitarian would not take communion in an Episcopal church since that church believes in the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Take the whole counsel of Franklin and not just Wiki. His views did change over time. His final creed was the following: Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children…. I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity. The statement on Divine Providence puts him at odds with deism. Franklin's statement denying the Deity of Christ puts him at odds with orthodox Christianity. His beliefs more align with Unitarian or today Jehovah's witnesses. Jefferson is all over the map. Paine, from what I observe, was closer to an atheist than a deist. There are some sources which show Paine denied any Deity. In Last Words of sinners and saints, Paine in his dying words said thus: "I would give worlds, if I had them, that Age of Reason had not been published. O Lord, help me! Christ help me! O God what have I done to suffer so much? But there is no God! But if there should be, what will become of me hereafter? Stay with me, for God's sake! ...If ever the devil had an agent, I have been that one." (Thomas Paine) Source:Last Words of Saints and Sinners:(p. 132)
But that's not what the link you pasted asserts. Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Once again you demonstrate you're nothing more than a disingenuous Fallible and Uninspired parrot looking to assume dominion over the faith of others - in this case, the other being Ben Franklin. FAIL
Read his letter. Divine Providence is not a deist term. Deists viewed an uninterested Creator. The watch maker. Franklin shows more signs of Unitarian. There is a God involved in the affairs of men. Franklin did not deny such a God as the deists did but he was also not a Trinitarian. He most aligns with the Arian beliefs on One God. So today he would have been either a Unitarian or Jehovah Witness. Paine's dying words as I quoted makes him no deist as they believed in a Deity Creator. He was more an agnostic or atheist. Paine had quite a following and some of them had last words like him: William Pope was a follower of Thomas Paine. WILLIAM POPE, who died in 1797, is said to have been the leader of a company of infidels who ridiculed everything religious. One of their exercises was to kick the Bible about the floor or tear it up. Friends who were present in his death-chamber spoke of it as a scene of terror as he died crying: "I have no contrition. I cannot repent. God will damn me. I know the day of grace is past . . . You see one who is damned forever . . Oh, Eternity! Eternity! . Nothing for me but hell. Come, eternal torments . . . I hate everything God has made, only I have no hatred for the devil -- I wish to be with him. I long to be in hell. Do you not see? Do you not see him? He is coming for me?" Lockyer, Herbert, All The Last Words Of Saints And Sinners (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1969) 132-133.
And yet, your opinion didn't seem to preclude Frankin from asserting the contrary: Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography, "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker) and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful."[50][51] Franklin also wrote that "the Deity sometimes interferes by his particular Providence, and sets aside the Events which would otherwise have been produc'd in the Course of Nature, or by the Free Agency of Man.[52] He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men."[53] Is cleaning the parrot guano off the pulpit included in your fee, or is there an occult charge for that?
The above is not a tenant of deism. Nor is your testimony of Trinitarian belief.
Nor is your testimony of BLAH BLAH BLAH. Meanwhile, YOU present a bleating example of the state-established parasites " WHO BEING FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS, SETTING UP THEIR OPINIONS AND MODES OF THINKING AS THE ONLY TRUE AND INFALLIBLE". NO SALE.
He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men."[53 The above is not a tenant of deism. Nor is your testimony of Trinitarian belief. Just in case some are playing the game at home above is what I responded to. This was your answer: The above is not a tenant of BLAH BLAH BLAH Nor is your testimony of BLAH BLAH BLAH. Shame on you. My 10 year old knows better and has better manners.
Are you raising them to be a Fallible and Uninspired religious goon in your own image? Do they know why/how male genitals are formed any better than you do?
Do they know why/how male genitals are formed any better than you do? They are being raised as Christians. By word and example. You know I'm sure my boys have this figured out more than you do. They have raised farm animals and know the difference between 'boys' and 'girls.' I know it is a tough concept these days but spend some time on a farm and it becomes quite clear.
Have they figured out the only reason they have a penis and scrotum is because of the effects of Androgen hormones? "Male and female sex organs develop from the same tissue. Whether this tissue becomes male organs or female organs depends on the chromosomes and the presence or absence of male hormones. In males, a region on the Y chromosome triggers the development of testicles, which produce male hormones. Male genitals develop in response to male hormones from the fetal testicles. In a fetus without a Y chromosome — without the effects of male hormones — the genitals develop as female."
They fully understand procreation and all it's phases. To be an effective future breeder of cattle this knowledge is a must at a young age in FFA. They know that when a sow gives birth the litter will have a certain percentage of male/female ratio. This is not hard really. How this confirms evolution over creation has no bearing. In fact, such an act shows more divine intervention than chance. But you are way off. At conception the sex of the embryo is determined. The sperm cell either has an X or Y chromosome. About 4 months later (humans) the sexual organs under go sexual differentiation based on the XX or XY sequence. You are looking for more than there is to this complex, yet clear chain of events.
And yet without Androgen, or with Insensitivity to Androgen - the genitalia don't undergo that differentiation, do they. Thus, XY individuals afflicted with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome present an external FEMALE appearance. She said she had no idea she was different when she was growing up but began to grow concerned when she had not started her periods by the age of 19, despite going through other signs of puberty. Following months of hospital trips and blood tests, specialists told her she had been born with XY chromosomes, meaning she was genetically male. She had no reproductive organs thanks to a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome.
A birth defect. A test for us to be compassionate, kind and supportive. Has bunk to do with evolution vs. creation.
"without the effects of male hormones — the genitals develop as female."
www.mayoclinic.org/diseas...asics/causes/con-20026345 That's not a birth defect, it's a biological human reproductive FACT. Only if you see the goal of procreation is to produce eunuchs. It is not. The goal from conception is either XX or XY. What happens after that is either a normal developmental process or a defect is introduced in gestation. "'God made them male and female' from the beginning of creation"--Jesus Christ And Jesus said: "“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”(Luke chapter 4) Believe me...I know something about babies being born not 'perfect' babies. The struggles and surgeries the child endures and then see them overcome what was a 'defect' to be the fastest and strongest in their age group. Batting average is pretty good and what a glove!
"without the effects of male hormones — the genitals develop as female." What "sex" constitutes majority of individuals in a healthy bee hive? What a surprise (NOT) that the temple whores of Delphi chose the bee to represent them.
What a surprise (NOT) that the temple whores of Delphi chose the bee to represent them. You must be a hoot at weddings and Barmitzvahs.
More of a Bzzzzzzz than a hoot.
There are no replies to Comment # 151. End Trace Mode for Comment # 151.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: TooConservative (#3)
#8. To: redleghunter (#7)
#9. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#8)
#11. To: Liberator (#9)
And me and the Duck Commanders are boycotting Vera Wang!
#14. To: TooConservative, Dead Culture Watch (#11)
Now I just have to figure out who Dolce & Gabbana and Vera Wang are.
#15. To: Liberator, (#14)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Only child molesters support queers adopting children.
#17. To: Liberator (#16)
I hear even some brain-washed "Christians" supporting this crap.
#18. To: VxH (#17)
I hear even some brain-washed "Christians" supporting this crap. Well, that's organized religion for ya.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#18)
(Edited)
Oh yes organized religion
#20. To: VxH (#19)
Doesn't look very "organized" when it sanctifies the abomination of nature, does i
#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)
Why don't you tell me what you mean by teh abomination of nature.
#25. To: VxH (#22)
The same homosexualist doctrine that's being embraced and preached in a significant and growing number of organized religious purviews.
#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)
(Edited)
If they teach contrary to the Bible then they aren't Bible followers now are they?
#30. To: VxH (#27)
"FALLIBLE AND UNINSPIRED MEN HAVE ASSUMED DOMINION OVER THE FAITH OF OTHERS"
#31. To: A K A Stone, VxH (#30)
If your faith is not in Jesus your faith is inferior to mine, and I in no way respect it, in fact I spit on it.
#32. To: Liberator (#31)
VxH worships at the altar of...TOM JEFFERSON.
#35. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, VxH (#32)
(Edited)
I think Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable man. He did many great things for this nation. But he isn't God.
#38. To: Liberator (#35)
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist) Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
The drafter of the American Declaration of Independence didn't inspire any revolutions?
LOL. That'd be funny if it wasn't so religiously pathetic.
#39. To: VxH (#38)
#42. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#39)
#77. To: VxH, liberator, A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#42)
#78. To: redleghunter (#77)
(Edited)
As I stated Franklin more aligns with Unitarian
#81. To: VxH, liberator, A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#78)
#94. To: redleghunter (#81)
(Edited)
Divine Providence is not a deist term.
#95. To: VxH (#94)
He later stated, in the Constitutional Convention, that "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men."[53
#99. To: redleghunter (#95)
The above is not a tenant of BLAH BLAH BLAH
#101. To: VxH (#99)
#105. To: redleghunter (#101)
(Edited)
My 10 year old knows better and has better manners.
#110. To: VxH (#105)
Are you raising them to be a Fallible and Uninspired religious goon in your own image?
#111. To: redleghunter (#110)
(Edited)
You know I'm sure my boys have this figured out more than you do.
#120. To: VxH (#111)
Have they figured out the only reason they have a penis and scrotum is because of the effects of Androgen hormones?
#126. To: redleghunter (#120)
About 4 months later (humans) the sexual organs under go sexual differentiation based on the XX or XY sequence.
For Example: Woman born with no womb gives birth to miracle twins
Hayley Haynes, who was born with no reproductive organs, has given birth to twins after specialist treatment to grow a womb
#132. To: VxH, liberator, A K A Stone (#126)
And yet without Androgen, or with Insensitivity to Androgen - the genitalia don't undergo that differentiation, do they.
#138. To: redleghunter (#132)
A birth defect.
That's not a birth defect, it's a biological human reproductive FACT.
#145. To: VxH, liberator, A K A Stone (#138)
without the effects of male hormones — the genitals develop as female."
#148. To: redleghunter (#145)
(Edited)
Only if you see the goal of procreation is to produce eunuchs. It is not.
Your religious / human manufactured opinions regarding the "goals" of nature are irrelevant to nature. Just as water freezes at 32 degrees so too the fact that, without the effects of androgen hormones, human genitals develop as female - is self-evident, and stands regardless of opinion to the contrary. 
#150. To: VxH, liberator, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#148)
What "sex" constitutes majority of individuals in a healthy bee hive?
#151. To: redleghunter (#150)
(Edited)
You must be a hoot at weddings and Barmitzvahs.
Replies to Comment # 151.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]