Dolce and Gabbana comments inspire call for boycott

Dolce of Dolce & Gabbana recently stated in an interview with the Italian magazine, Panorama:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/us-people-eltonjohn-d-g-idUSKBN0MC1W720150316

Which upset Elton John, who responded with:

http://www.businessinsider.com/elton-john-boycots-dolce-and-gabbana-2015-3#ixzz3UZTh4YKe

Which quickly led to similar calls from other celebrities, and eventually this explanation by Gabbana:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/15/us-people-eltonjohn-d-g-idUSKBN0MB0VV20150315

Oh, this is rich - I won't be a bit surprised if it becomes the new mantra of haters everywhere: "I was just expressing my personal opinion, not passing judgment on others".

BS. The stated opinions were very much an expression of judgment made against other people. If it was a 'personal opinion', why make that opinion public in an interview? And how does it being a 'personal opinion' render it any less an expression of judgment against other people??? It doesn't.

As for, "We believe firmly in democracy and we think freedom of expression is essential for that.":

Um, so do I. But I don't believe that entitles a fashion designer, making controversial statements in an interview, to be shielded from the consequences of shooting off his mouth and upsetting people with his display of backward and judgmental thinking.

So, if you're inclined to express a 'personal' opinion that judges others, you should make sure you're equally prepared for the fallout from that - because no law can protect you from other people making their own judgments about what you say, even if they don't publicly call for a boycott.

 

I concur

If Elton did not want people who disagree with him then he should not speak out. You were talking about Elton John who assumes that everyone agrees with him, weren't you?

About Dolce, I never heard of them but checked the web site and prices. By the looks of the items, that guy(s) should realize the demographic and that PC is the norm and he best not speak the truth.

 

They will be crucified like Cosby was for telling his own people the truth.

I love this gay civil war.

 

By the truth, I'm assuming you mean the moronic idea of natural law that would have died centuries ago if not peddled by the Catholic Church to justify their bigotry?

Nature exists. It is not inherently right or wrong. Unnatural is not a synonym for bad, but using it as an insult is a synonym for "I am utterly incapable of any reasoning that takes more effort than emotional raving."

 

yup, nature does exist and no matter how many attempts Elton and his man lover try, they cannot conceive a child together.

 

Science is very close to succeeding where nature hasn't on that front.

 

I had to rub my eyes and read this a couple of times.... that statement is truly disturbing. I do hope this was merely an impulse response to defend your position.

Naturally, a male and female can conceive
Medicine has come a far way to help out in cases where abnormal conditions have obstructed either the male / female ability to do so.

Naturally, neither 2 males nor 2 females can conceive.

1. Has nature failed because 2 males or 2 females cannot conceive?
2. What abnormal condition exists that requires science to succeed?

 

IVF does not make a baby "synthetic", so no they are not telling the truth.

 

Nope.

A woman's womb not able to carry or hold a baby to full term. A friend of ours could not hold a fertilized egg to full term because her womb had some scarring when she was raped as a child. Science has made it so they modified her womb so that she was able to carry a baby.

Some women are not that lucky and IVF, planting the fertilized egg into another woman is the only way for them to have a child.

 

Thank you for putting some context to the statement.
This example shows where some medical abnormality would have proved to be a barrier for the natural conception process.
Advancements in science and medicine have given this person a way to make possible what was already natural process.
Much like prosthetic parts give amputees a chance at resuming normal body functions

All that I said above comes back to the bottom line, which I will emphasize again.
1. Has nature / natural function failed because 2 men or 2 women are not able to naturally conceive?
2. What medical abnormality exists among 2 men or 2 women that requires science to succeed?

 

Of course not.

Again, not sure why that is important. Maybe that is a debate you are having with another poster not sure. I'm simply stating that science has allowed things to happen that normally wouldn't happen naturally. A woman not being able to carry a fertilized egg is still a natural occurrence.

Science has enabled us to all do, survive, or enhance our lives in ways that naturally we just wouldn't be able to do. I don't look at it as nature failing as much as I look at mankind succeeding in general. IVF is one of those things I look at mankind succeeding.

Science succeeding does not mean that nature has failed.

 

I was almost in agreement with you, then the part in red caught my eye.
Naturally, a man and woman can conceive - there are medical abnormalities which exists that prove a hindrance - Science can assist in that process.
Naturally, 2 men or 2 women cannot conceive - there are no medical abnormalities which exists that hinder the natural function - Science in this case perverts natural processes, not assist.

Since we both agree on question 1, only question 2 remains then...
What medical abnormality exists among 2 males or 2 females trying to conceive that requires science to succeed?
There could very well be one, and your post could very well enlighten me

 

When I say naturally, I mean the specific case of the two people that cannot have children. That happened naturally did it not? If no medical intervention happened, naturally they wouldn't be able to conceive.

Nature and naturally are not always synonymous.

Now to answer your question #2, naturally the two same-sex people cannot conceive a baby together. To that I say, so what?

It is no different than a couple that cannot conceive a child naturally going through IVF.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

What is your point? What are you arguing. Spell it out. State your position and construct an argument

Is it that children born to gays are somehow less valuable as human beings than those born to heterosexuals?

Are children born to heterosexual couples with the help of a sperm donor or surrogate more valid or valuable than those born to gay people?

Is it that gay people should not have children at all?

Does this have something to do with same sex marriage?

Lets hear it.

 

interesting and thoughtful comments. Perhaps I could shine some light on what was discussed

2 men cannot conceive a child nor can 2 women. I believe that it was quite clear.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3
In any case, let's get back to the OP

That is the whole matter that started this debate.

So when you ask...

And I reply with

At that point, I logically proved Dolce Gabana quote and affirmed my position on the matter. This is where you are supposed to push the debate further with more logical statements, not to bash me with rhetoric questions.

Again, neither 2 men nor 2 women are capable are capable of producing children naturally. Natural functions do not enable this. Not a part of nature. There is no abnormal medical condition to overcome
There is no natural process to enable this
Against that background, what rationale do homosexuals have to procure children and purchase parenthood?

You ask a leading question, so I have no choice but to play into to it...children in the care of homosexuals are no less valuable than those of heterosexuals. They can turn out to be great on day and give back to society. I only question the couple that chooses to pervert nature to allow this.

Same question as above, so same answer as above

Naturally, 2 men or 2 women cannot have children. There is no natural body function to allow this.
Yet they are intent on defying natural processes and seeking parenthood all the same. What rationale exists for them to do this?

As far as I am aware the thread was not started about same sex marriage, so I did not comment with that angle.
Does it have something to do with same sex marriage though?

Over to you, please be courteous in your response as I did not bash you
Please

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

The point that I was making-that you took offence at- was that I find your assertion that there is some fundamental difference between children born to gays –" DISTURBING You are apparently in agreement with Dolce and Gabbana who referred them as chemical children, synthetic babies, wombs for rent.. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

To your credit, you go on to say that “children in the care of homosexuals are no less valuable than those of heterosexuals. They can turn out to be great on day and give back to society”.

However, you then you add that “I only question the couple that chooses to pervert nature to allow this.” You seem to have no other purpose than to disparage gays and to cast doubt on their worth, and the worth of their children, despite your claim to the contrary

Answer me this. Why do you question the motives of gays who want to have children. Are anyone’ s motives pure? Do you question the motives of straight people who have children, sometimes for the wrong reasons and by other than “natural” means?

You said a similar thing on another thread-one that I started about how children will help to win the fight about same sex marriage, ( http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...in-fight-same-sex-marriage-adoption-gays.html ) where I pointed out how marriage equality will benefit children. I asked similar questions of you then and you did not respond. For that reason, my questions about your position on same sex marriage here is fair game. If you are not going to address the issues of marriage, adoption and child rearing by gay people , your post has no meaning or value and is nothing more than gay bashing.

I ask you again now; what does any of this have to do with our laws, and policies about gay people and gay parenting? Are you for or against gay marriage and gay parenting and if not why. All of this stuff about “natural bodily functions” and who can reproduce is useless and irrelevant when it comes down to the reality of the wellbeing of the children and the fair treatment of gay people. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Yet again, show me how two gay people that do this are any different than a couple that cannot conceive a child on their own.
Do you think that heterosexual couple is perverted for doing it? You are so caught up on the 2 male or 2 female thing, you ignore the fact that other HETEROSEXUAL couples do the SAME THING.

And yes, this indirectly leads into the whole SSM debate because people are wanting gays not to use the word marriage or be married when the ONLY difference is they are two males or two females versus a heterosexual couple. Why are you so hung up on the two male, two female thing?

They are seeking parenthood the same as two heterosexuals that cannot conceive a child do. Yet again, you show you are so hung up on the naturally thing you fail to see that a heterosexual couple that CANNOT conceive a child NATURALLY do the same thing as these gay people do.

 

That is really your opinion, and you have the right to hold it. But it isn't a fact, it isn't a logical argument.

It's really a baseless claim, you have the right to make such a claim but it doesn't offer much as an argument.

 

MOD EDIT - Off Topic
Now back to thread.

Multiple times I have stated why I question the motives. I always start with this as the backdrop

Now look again at what Dolce Gabana said

I do not need to question the motives of heterosexuals. Producing offspring is a natural function of a male and a female.
The same cannot be said for 2 males or 2 females. There is no natural function which enables this.
I suspect they still form a couple knowing this - I cannot stop them. But again, what is their rationale for procuring children, they know that it is not possible in the natural sense of things, yet they still want to give care to a child. I am asking why.

I'll adapt one of Sec's analogies.
A man, woman and child are walking down the street. Nobody questions if it is their child or how the child came to be.
2 males / 2 females and child are walking down the street. People start to wonder how the child came to be.

And as far as this goes

Look back at the topic and then look at what you just wrote. This thread started because of what Dolce Gabana said; nothing to do with marriage laws or policies.
You are going off topic and deflecting by introducing other elements into the debate, If you need to talk about those then start another thread as you would have done so many times before.

Its funny how I can answer your questions but you never seem to answer mine.... must be a feature that kicks in after you reach a certain post count; I hope to get there one day.

If you are being genuine about this debate, please answer these 2 questions:
1. What medical abnormality exists which requires science to succeed for 2 males / 2 females to have children?
2. Homosexuals couple know that no natural function enables them to have children, yet they choose to procure them anyway. What rationale exists for this?

 

I've answered and you've ignored it.

#1 There is isn't any abnormaility.

#2. Whether gay or straight, people are still born with their respective reproductive organs and they still have NATURAL parenting instincts that don't go away just because you are gay. You focus on ONLY one part of a person, their sexual orientation and then try to label EVERYTHING else about that person as being somehow "unnatural".

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 Marriage is in fact relevant because this is about children and children are effected by laws that discriminate against the parents.MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Now consider this: I fully concede that two people of the same sex, in isolation, without the assistance of a surrogate, a sperm donor, or any form of medical/ scientific intervention CANNOT CONCIEVE A CHILD. There! Happy!

Having said that, I ask this. Given the realities of today’s society, and knowing that same sex couples can and do come to have children in their care by a variety of means, what is our response as a nation. I see three possibilities:
1. We can condemn and criminalize homosexuality and prohibit the conception of children by any means, and child rearing by gays. We could even take their children away. Problem solved.
2. We could simply withhold the benefits of marriage, continue to marginalize gays, and in general not support them and make life as difficult as possible for them and their children
3. We can recognize their worth as family units and afford them all of the same rights and benefits of heterosexual families, if for no other reason, than to ensure the wellbeing and security of the children.
You choice.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Now hold on a second... I never ignored any answers you gave me.
Look back on the posts. Remember the very first question about if nature has failed.... you said of course not... and we agreed

Now finally we agree that there is no abnormality that exists preventing homosexuals from naturally producing offspring.
Science, therefore would not be rectifying / assisting the natural process in such instances.

On to the next one

Let's dissect this shall we.....
1. People are born with respective reproductive organs.... On that we agree

2. They have natural parenting instincts that don't go away just because you are gay.... We cannot, in good faith, make sweeping statements like that.
Some people want to be parents, some people don't want to be parents. Some people are good at parenting, some people are not.
At the end of the day it is a choice.
But who are homosexuals making the choice for?
There is no natural function allowing them to give birth, they know this
No abnormality exists that requires correction, they know this
Their choice to be homosexuals naturally cuts out the option to have children, they know this.
As luck would have it, science offers a way to circumvent what otherwise wouldn't be possible naturally, they know this
Who benefits from homosexuals choosing to procure children?
You almost caught me out back there by trying to pass off natural instincts as natural functions. Very clever, kudos

3. You focus on ONLY one part of a person, their sexual orientation and then try to label EVERYTHING else about that person as being somehow "unnatural".
Remember what started this thread, its what Dolce Gabana said

I am debating with that reference in mind, and from my understanding this reference points to natural functions.
Based on what we have agreed so far, the conclusion remains, there is no natural function enabling homosexuals to have children.
But it appears you would want to debate by introducing other elements into the argument.
To do that we would need to agree on what has been presented so far, barring that we may be at an impasse.

Over to you

 

we have found a point on which we agree

 

Now answer the question that your new friend will not