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: 41748
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 # 171.
#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.
People who use the phrase organized religion to attack it are shallow morons. Would you have it that God disn't reveal himself to us and we all just make up what our own beliefs. God revealing himself to man is a good thing. That people wrote it down so we know the truth is a good thing. There will always be liars who will use any religion to advance their evil purposes. That would be unorganized religion as they are not following the book to the letter.
Like the Mormons did? Like the Muslims did? Like the Scientologists did? Are they not each and every one of them an (organized) TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN? Water freezes at 32 degrees regardless of my belief. The order of the Creator is manifested, and revealed, throughout nature -- but whether it's Lucifer or Nebuchadnezzar that's identified in Isaiah 14 by his heinous King James, not so much.
Like the Muslims did? Like the Scientologists did? Those are good exampleso of made up pretend religions.
Are they organized? Is the tyranny they inflict upon those within their purview corporately organized? Meanwhile, the self-evidence of natural order exists for comprehension by Individuals from "ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE". To America's founders - the perception of that natural order and the happiness rendered in so doing was an inalienable right.
Is it self evident to you that man didn't evolve? That it takes a male and a female to reproduce. Thus requiring a special creation event.
It's self-evident to me that human sexual morphology only manifests male anatomy in response to androgen hormones. A response that is visibly absent in the vestigial female anatomy of XY Androgen insensitive individuals. "Holding their two little miracles at home: The woman born a MAN and told she would never conceive cradles twin girls with her husband Hayley Haynes, 28, was born without a womb, ovaries or fallopian tubes Doctors told her she had XY chromosomes, genetically making her male When she was told she would never conceive it left Hayley feeling 'sick' She had babies Avery and Darcey after IVF treatment using an egg donor Said becoming a mother was the 'single most amazing moment of my life' ================== It's also self-evident that such rare anomalies are exploited by transhumanist/postgenderists whose goal is the perversion of nature in their own image instead of living in harmony with it. Just like they did circa Romans 1:25+ Nonetheless, the fact that human sexual morphology begins with female characteristics raises obvious questions with Biblical creation mythology.
HUH?? You can you be any more totally and monumentally beyond help? Having perused this thread, the brakes slammed several times...to chuckle and shake my head. Just stunning.
A typical response to be expected from a religiously petrified Idiot. "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." That's right super genius, sans testosterone and other Androgen hormones, XY individuals present the external appearance of FEMALE genetalia. Of course, lacking a womb, these individuals are reproductively sterile. When caught early enough, however, the administration of androgen hormones has allowed the afflicted individuals to mature into relatively normal human males. Now once again I'll ask - how do you explain that FACT using Genesis' creation myth?
Well we know it is not by chance. It that be the case all chance would be 50/50 as that is roughly the breakdown of the sexes on earth. So the coveted 'chance' is out. Answer: "“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you;"---God
It that be? LOL. So did Adam have female genitals before or after your myth formed him out of the mud? Where did Eve come from again, allegedly?
That would be "If." No, as God formed man from the dust of the earth.
Did he form man with female genitals?
No because he was called Adam...Man. What the original man and woman have to do with following procreation is irrelevant to your assertion. Your ridiculous assertion would lead to "was Adam ever a sperm cell." That's just plain stupid and you know it.
And yet his sons, and their sons, and etc... had genitalia that only present themselves with male form in the presence of Androgen hormones. Otherwise, they'd have been born as female appearing... wait for it... EUNUCHS.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you;---God The Potter is still involved in the clay. God is Sovereign. Or to put it more in terms all may be able to grasp. When the round comes out of the breech, it is intended to be that way. You have a eunuch fetish.
Yeah that's what your religiously petrified state-establishing brethren in ISIS assert too when they're raping the Yezidi "devil" worshippers. Idiots all. NO SALE.
And here you professed belief in the Christ of the Bible being truly God and truly Man. If the above is not the sovereign design of God, then what is your view?
My view is I'm an infidel who enjoys America's protections against state-established religious coercion.
And yet you have this very strange need to get in people's faces over religious views they have. Why is that? Why is this strange need of yours so virulent and what caused this? Were you an alter boy who was given 'special attention' by the priest?
Maybe it's a natural response to when Fallible and Uninspired frauds assume dominion over the tele-curriculum.
Wow, they all post here? Who knew!
Birds of a feather fleece together.
How much money did they get from you? I hope a lot.
Zero. Is that what your Christian doctrine teaches you to hope?
So, you are calling me a Christian? Find a single post anywhere by me where I claim any religious affiliation. There is 14 years worth of posts, and I can assure you not once have I said that. So, you've called all the posters here who believe in Christ crooks, without any evidence, is that what you consider cool? Or, are you just Yukons twin?
No, you called them crooks. I just call them Fallible and Uninspired parrots who assume dominion over the faith of others. Just like their tele-sun-parrot counterparts. And there's PLENTY of evidence for that.
I just call them Fallible and Uninspired parrots who assume dominion over the faith of others. Just like their tele-sun-parrot counterparts. And there's PLENTY of evidence for that. So, birds of a feather fleece together doesn't mean they are crooks, just like those in the pictures? Now it's obvious you lie. Also, tell me how someone assumes dominion over another's faith? You just throw pompous words out there, but it's obvious there is no depth of thought behind anything you post, just tripe you repackage over and over, all of it designed to get under someone's skin. I can appreciate a good troll, but your act is getting old.
"Crooks" is the word coming from your beak. Meanwhile, the uniform vitriole of the sun-parrots (you're defending) towards the Viginia Act and its author unites them. 'To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.' Don't you agree?
#172. To: VxH (#171)
Vitriol? Dumbass, the reason only reason I'm on this thread is because of YOUR vitriol. Tard.
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?
#29. To: VxH (#27)
Such has always been the nature of the organized religious farce
#57. To: A K A Stone (#29)
(Edited)
and we all just make up what our own beliefs.
#58. To: VxH (#57)
and we all just make up what our own beliefs. Like the Mormons did?
#60. To: A K A Stone (#58)
Those are good exampleso of made up pretend religions.
#62. To: VxH (#60)
Meanwhile, the self-evidence of natural order exists
#65. To: A K A Stone (#62)
Is it self evident to you that man didn't evolve? That it takes a male and a female to reproduce. Thus requiring a special creation event.
=======================
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...eared-no-man-want-me.html
#96. To: VxH, redleghunter, A K A Stone, nativist nationalist (#65)
"...The fact that human sexual morphology begins with female characteristics raises obvious questions with Biblical creation mythology."
#98. To: Liberator, redleghunter (#96)
HUH??
#100. To: VxH, liberator (#98)
Now once again I'll ask - how do you explain that FACT using Genesis' creation myth?
#102. To: redleghunter (#100)
(Edited)
It that be the case all chance would be 50/50 as that is roughly the breakdown of the sexes on earth.
#103. To: VxH (#102)
#104. To: redleghunter (#103)
No, as God formed man from the dust of the earth.
#107. To: VxH (#104)
Did he form man with female genitals?
#109. To: redleghunter (#107)
(Edited)
No because he was called Adam...Man.
#112. To: VxH (#109)
And yet his sons, and their sons, and etc... had genitalia that only present themselves with male form in the presence of Androgen hormones.
#115. To: redleghunter (#112)
(Edited)
God is Sovereign.
#125. To: VxH (#115)
God is Sovereign.
#130. To: redleghunter (#125)
then what is your view?
#152. To: VxH (#130)
My view is I'm an infidel who enjoys America's protections against state-established religious coercion.
#157. To: Dead Culture Watch (#152)
(Edited)
Why is that?
etc etc etc.
#158. To: VxH (#157)
#159. To: Dead Culture Watch (#158)
#162. To: VxH (#159)
#164. To: Dead Culture Watch (#162)
How much money did they get from you?
I hope a lot.
#165. To: VxH (#164)
#166. To: Dead Culture Watch (#165)
(Edited)
So, you've called all the posters here who believe in Christ crooks
#170. To: VxH (#166)
To: Dead Culture Watch So, you've called all the posters here who believe in Christ crooks No, you called them crooks.
#171. To: Dead Culture Watch (#170)
(Edited)
So, birds of a feather fleece together doesn't mean they are crooks, just like those in the pictures?
Replies to Comment # 171.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 171.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]