LGBT News Dolce & Gabbana on gay marriage

Acting way too hostile towards DoubleSoul, don't be like the people you fight against.

I am opposed to D&G, but I have my own feelings on the matter.

I'm for gay marriage if anything for the legal issues, not allowing marriage has caused terrible problems and headache, so even if I had my own thoughts I weigh in favour.

For adoption I think it's good, I'm more concerned about the individual who wants to adopt than what their skin colour or orientation is.

As for artificial means for producing real children, I'm against that. I do not think it is right, but humans are taking it steps further and are constantly controlling or modifying how children are made, and it greatly offends me.

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2015 at 12:35 PM ----------

He(?) said he didn't want to share and you guys refuse to accept that, before everyone gets modded let it go, it's only provoking.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you guys get your way any more than he does, that's being hypocritical if you expect him to answer to your whims when he does not desire to acquiesce to yours.

 

I found D&G's words to be very hurtful, even though I wasn't conceived through IVF, nor do I know anyone that was/is. They are just as legitimate as any other child.

I think that there are gay couples that are perfectly capable of raising normal children. Now, there are some that would do better than others, but that goes along with straight couples as well.

I'm glad the exchange above didn't blow up like most online convos. Always be respectful, even if you think one person's beliefs are wrong/stupid/silly/etc.

 

Wow, that's an incredibly cold opinion to have. Children of chemistry? Synthetic children? That is an incredibly cold-hearted stance in my opinion and it's also very uncalled for. They probably don't know how much this can hurt someone who is born via IVF.

Very sad to hear that some people think like that.

I completely agree with you. Dehumanizing, that's exactly how I feel about it too.

How saddening.. I think you have some inner-homophobia in you. Gay parents can be excellent parents. There are children who have no home who wish to have parents, and you're basically denying the children's right to have parents when they can have them.

I'm so glad that the country I'll live in (and live in now) supports adoption for same-sex couples. =)

 

I have reservations about such procedures, not because of situations like same-sex couples adopting, or spiting God, but because of the way this may go. It's one thing to want to remedy, say, a possible handicap, and that isn't where my reservation goes to. It is the individuals who will say, you know, let's make "the perfect baby", like that child of theirs is some project to accessorize.

Also, when the 'this isn't natural' remarks come out, I remind folks that neither are glasses or hearing aids -- should we deny the hard-of-seeing and hard-of-hearing these? Surely if they were meant to see or hear, they'd see or hear, or never have been denied those abilities. And if they cannot naturally produce the means to regain them, perhaps it is best to leave it at that. Maybe we shouldn't treat cancer patients, since to do so is to defy nature and what it intends, and perhaps we shouldn't donate that kidney because, fuck it, if you were meant to have that kidney, you'd either grow one or never have lost your first one, a--

"But God/Allah/Ronald Reagan/whatever, inspired people,
to come up with those treatments, cures, and procedures. That's what we're here for!"​

Most folks don't quite catch the irony.

 

I'm glad that people can have children with 'aid', so to say it. Does that offend some? Yes it does, like you, some are against it.

Me? I'm glad science is moving forward and I look forward to seeing more possibilities and future developments. If it offends some, it might, but if we'd listen to that then science won't progress like it's progressing now.

 

Although I understand and respect much of post, I disagree with this view on the debate in this thread.

DoubleSoul's views might very well be reasonable and even convincing; however, there is no such thing is a respectable opinion that cannot be explained. Although there are plenty of reputable studies and data to support the idea that single and LGBTQ parents are able to be equally as effective in raising children, I am not someone who tends to ask for established data or proof; but at least have a reasonable explanation if you expect people to respect your views. There is nothing more dangerous than a belief that is held without reason.

 

The same thing can be said for straight couples that can't conceive without a surrogate or when one or both of the partners are infertile. As a matter of fact, I know a number of rich couples who cannot have children because the woman can't have children. If I'm to follow the logic of D&G, then the children of the straight couples will also be "synthetic", whatever that means.

What if the surrogate was a machine? The couples then won't be using live beings. Will the babies still be "synthetic"?

Meh. I think he was just upset when he said that. He was upset that others have and he doesn't.

 

And yet DS apparently can (even if done passive aggressively) throw that whole 'stop being so damn PC' argument around? This isn't even a slight towards DS, as we've already had our convo and come to an agreement for now, but more a point that this isn't as one-sided as you make it out to be.

If anything, 'I don't agree with you and think *fill in issue* is wrong, but I ain't gonna tell you why' is just as provocative as jumping on someone going about it that way(not including the jumping at me for supposedly being PC, when that had nothing to do with anything, but it's w/e honestly).

Have to agree with Gen here:

This isn't even really a slight at you, as some of your post I also agree with, but I have to say that the 'artificial baby making' is more a gray area if you ask me...I don't have a true side there. :l

 

Oh, no. I haven't even taken sides really. I actually didn't intend to post in this thread until I decided to respond to that specific point. On the actual topic, I am clearly for gay and single parents. I am absolutely for increased fertility by artificial means. I am somewhat less for creation of a child by purely artificial means. Even then that has less to do with science vs nature, and more to do with my cynical views on humanity.

I would also see emotional or moral reasons as valid arguments on these types of subjects. As long as they are explained and well thought out.

 

Whoops...sorry about that.

That last part was part of my reply to Dorian. O:

 

You guys are reading wayyyy too much into it. This isn't "say things and justify why you're right", if someone wants to say "I hate potatoes because reasons", you guys have to hold that.

The fallacy seems to be some feel as though the reason needs to be justified to them, when the reason is personal to the individual.

I dislike bacon, and I don't /need/ to tell people why if I do not want to, and if you love bacon kudos to you, but if I want to think Hitler was the greatest man on earth for reasons, you have to accept that.

Might not like it, may not be right, but it is what it is, and as far as seeing how people treat each other and behave there's a lot of hypocrisy going on without naming names.

This is a forum where people can and do post thoughts or views, politely asking why someone feels a certain way is fine, but as soon as personal bias and speculation come into play people need to agree to disagree.

I stick up for DS not because I agree with him, I disagree, but I respect his reasons not to have to share, I disrespect how some have talked to him when they didn't get their way.

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2015 at 03:07 PM ----------

People are hasty to begin debates, when blanket statements are a part of forum life. I see people say offensive things about religion or their views, but I know they don't say it to start an argument, they're just voicing themselves. DS afaik voiced his thoughts, and that was that, but it struck a cord with some and they wanted to understand more, but he was not comfortable sharing, possibly to not offend.



EDIT:

Everything should have ended here, but he was not respected, and in turn it got out of hand. This is my last post regarding the matter, since it's a very minor issue that does not need much explanation or controversy over.

 

I found what Dolce and Gabbana said very offensive, not only to LGBT parents, but also to STRAIGHT parents who have to use IVF. Materials are synthetic, not children.

 

What even is a respectable opinion, as if that's not completely subjective..

If someone can assert that gay parents are inferior to straight on an lgbt forum and not catch flak for it then the world is crazy. The idea that everyone's opinion has to be respected and is above scrutiny no matter what it is has nothing to do with free speech and is mental

I don't like black people but don't ask me why have some respect for different viewpoints pls don't be so pc

 

What they said wasn't really that bad. I'm personally against experiments that involve messing with eggs and sperm to create to biological parents of the same sex. I'm also against IVF, as I don't believe that is ethical. I really feel like same-sex couples have an obligation to just adopt. I'm not against sperm donors or surrogacy (as long as it's not IVF), but I do disagree with experiments that mess with the cells being used to create a baby.

Do I think it should be banned? No. Do Dolce and Gabbana have a right to their opinion? Yes.

This seems like yet another time when the media is throwing a statement out of proportion. The more attention they get, the more influence they have. Just look at Duck Dynasty. They started off as some redneck TV show, and now they are praised by the the Christian Right for simply saying what they want to hear. Elton John just needs to mind his own business if he wants this to get resolved.

 

I want to first say that I'm going to assume that the feelings toward potatoes and bacon are for taste, ethical, and/or ecological reasons. I already have heard sound arguments for them.

On the other, if someone comes and says "Hitler is the greatest," or, in a less extreme case "Gay people are unfit to be parents," then I haven't heard sound arguments for these statements and I'm interested in knowing the logic behind a provocative opinion like this. Otherwise, I'm not going to be able to understand the statement or get anything from it - after all, what's the point of communicating if not to let others know what you're thinking?

Back to the subject of the actual post, referring to IVF children as synthetic is just awful. Like others have said, it dehumanizes. Personally, I would rather adopt than use surrogacy, but I think it should be an option just like not adopting is an option for fertile straight couples. The idea that a child created by chemistry is any different from any other child is ludicrous and offensive - as if anything is NOT made of chemicals (okay, subatomic particles, but in general).

---------- Post added 16th Mar 2015 at 08:57 PM ----------

I'm curious as to what makes messing with gametes different ethically, particularly what part of IVF really involves messing with eggs and sperm.

 

It's not that they are against IVF. It's that they called children of IVF "synthetic". That's incredibly dehumanizing, no matter what your personal views on IVF are. That's not blowing something out of proportion, that's just a terrible thing to say.

 

Who?

 

I just don't agree with messing with the natural order of human reproduction. I worry about what such procedures would lead to. If someone is not able to physically produce a baby, then I just think they have the obligation to adopt children who don't have parents of their own.

I can see it being offensive, but people are seriously throwing this out of proportion. They are just fashion designers. Their opinion should not affect how much a parent loves their child.

 

I do tend to agree with you on the adopting children part, although I think the obligation should be shared more rather than just saying "let's let infertile and gay people deal with it."
To the second part of your post - the thing is it's not about that this statement causing people to love their child less, it's about Dolce & Gabbana saying some dehumanizing things that are basically bullying children and Elton John and others saying that maybe we shouldn't be handing over money to these people. I think it's important to spread the message about people saying such things so that people can decide how to spend their money.

 

Dolce and Gabbana have done what no man should ever do, and that is to really piss off Elton John. I thought it he was going to just say "Yeaahh, no." Damn, if I haven't seen a sassier post, I don't know what is.

I've heard horror stories about how Mr. Elton John is backstage, and something isn't perfect. Same with Richard Little, but more so Elton John.

D&G better run.