Now, this is a tricky post to write because the two heroes in this story are gay. They are living a life that God the Father abhors. And, as a result, despite their wealth and fame, I would not wish their compromised lives on anyone.
But, having said that, I must admit to admiring both of these gay men for their comments in support of traditional marriage, during a recent interview with the Italian magazine Panorama. Both men not only support traditional marriage, but traditional family life as well and they stressed its importance to children.
Although gay, both still seem to retain some semblance of their Christian faith in that they understand the need of a child to have a real mother and a real father and a traditional family.
Mr. Dolce said, “It’s not us who invented the family. 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?”
Dolce goes on to reiterate a very basic tenet of Christianity when he said, “Procreation needs to be an act of love.”
For Christians, this has ALWAYS been the premise behind sexual intercourse, loving procreation. It has always been the process by which a loving, Christian, married, couple brought their precious children, safely and securely, into the world.
That is, until radical, second-wave feminism reared its ugly head in the late 1960s and early 1970s and created their depleted interpretation of sexual intercourse, as defined by their “Sexual Revolution.”
But, despite what radical feminists have been espousing for almost 50 years, sex was NEVER intended, by our Creator, to be a form of entertainment for couples, or worse yet, an abusive “empowerment” game for women, as is now asserted by radical, third-wave feminists.
The act of sexual intercourse was NEVER intended to be abused – by couples who barely know each other, or were too drunk to even care what the outcome might be or for personal satisfaction and gratification!
Radical feminism’s depleted view of sexual intercourse, as sport, has not only denigrated the act itself but cheapened the very lives of the women who indulge in this depleted behavior. Where is the essential element of love that Dolce references? Correct. It’s gone, and with it, women’s human dignity as defined by Christianity.
Dolce and Gabbana believe that children should be the happy result, of the love shared by a married man and woman. The natural result of the love of a couple, who have made a life-long commitment to each other, and who want children of their own.
Domenico Dolce went on to say, “No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed.” And, the sacrament of marriage is one of those things that should not be changed, as it is the guardian to that natural flow of life.
As a result of their feelings on the subject of traditional marriage and the natural children it should produce, Dolce and Gabbana are also opposed to gay adoption. Both of the men told the magazine, “We oppose gay adoptions.” Gabbana went on to say, “The only family is the traditional one. The family is not a fad. In it, there is a supernatural sense of belonging.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Obviously their comments riled-up the homosexual community. But, of course, all of the notoriously vile comments spewed by the nut jobs within their community are to be expected. These are the same infantile individuals who, time and time again, have shown themselves to be nothing more than toddlers – throwing a temper tantrum every time they don’t get their way!
These same horrid individuals are not only attempting to disparage Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana’s personal opinions and their reputations within their community but, they have actually gotten-down-in-the-gutter and are actively encouraging Dolce and Gabbana’s customers to boycott their luxury products as well!
And, despicably, openly gay Elton John and his partner, David Furnish, are leading the charge.
Elton John’s insipid and hate-filled retort concerning Dolce and Gabbana’s comments reveals why homosexuality was considered a mental illness, until the toddlers who instigated the societal chaos of the 1970s, pressured the psychiatric community to ignore the truth.
Elton John’s very public, and outrageously intolerant, response to these two men who are part of his own community and simply have a differing opinion from his, is telling. The viciousness with which Elton John has personally condemned, besmirched and vilified Dolce and Gabbana, shows he is a very disturbed man.
I hope that Dolce and Gabbana’s wealthy customers will continue to support their very successful business. They are exquisite designers of men’s and women’s clothes and accessories. But more importantly, they are designers of children’s clothing as well.
If you have the time, Google “Dolce and Gabbana” and take a peak at their children’s clothing line. You can see the high regard with which they hold children, through the clothes they design for them. The clothes are sweet, darling, and modestly traditional, with a wonderfully colorful flare. These are happy clothes for the happy children of happy married couples.
I wish Dolce and Gabbana continued success.
But, as for Elton John? Let’s turn the tables on him and boycott his business instead! I think it will probably make him cry.
Update: Soon after Elton John went on a tirade about Dolce & Gabbana’s views on traditional marriage, and then instigated a world-wide boycott of their products, he was photographed entering a recording studio carrying a new Dolce & Gabbana shopping bag!
This only reinforces my assessment of his disturbed mind.
Do you believe there’s no economic advantage of accomodating so called transsexuals? (in the name of “social justice” and “fairness”)
I fail to see any “economic” advantages to accommodating transsexuals. In fact, I recall when one of our largest hotel chains complained about the excessive cost involved with remodeling ALL of their public bathrooms in order to accommodate the “handicapped” regulations when wheelchair accessibility became law in the 1990s. They spent 200 million dollars to remodel all of their public bathrooms and during the entire following year, only TWENTY wheelchair-bound people used the bathrooms! The expense was beyond excessive compared with the “need”. So, it probably would prove the same for transgender accommodations. If all public bathrooms were required to JUST install urinals in all public ladies bathrooms, the cost would be excessive as compared to usage since there are far fewer “transgenders” then there are wheelchair-bound individuals. And, transgenders access for ladies bathroom would require the cost of hiring security for female customers and their children using those same bathrooms since most transgenders are MALE. Plus, the stores would suffer the loss of business due to the public outrage at the company’s approval of this potentially dangerous situation and then inflicting these unnecessary risks on its customers. In addition, the loss of business from their Christian and, in your case, muslim, customers due to their righteous objections to the obscenity of the situation. Neither “social justice” or “fairness” are valid arguments in this situation since it denies the vast majority of the female public basic rights and expectations of privacy and personal safety a public bathroom for politically expeditious reasons.
Sadly in the name of intersectionality many people who fought for disability rights (including in mine) were also want or at least open to support rights for the transsexuals and it’s derivatives.
Heck, in case of mine, knowing muslims, the results can be violent and bloody.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another form of “incrementalism”. That’s why it’s SO important for leaders to envision where the first “baby steps” may lead. Those first steps always appear banal, innocent or inconsequential but that RARELY proves to be the case. Liberals ALWAYS start with empathetic baby steps, ie. approval of “medical” marijuana, when what they really wanted was the legalization of recreational drug use.
With regards to the article link you sent, “waria” are mentally ill people. It should surprise no one that these individuals find it very hard to find work and are therefore living in poverty. They scare most normal people because their behavior is SO far out of the norm. The average person has very little exposure to “waria” due to their very small numbers, so it should also surprise no one that people’s natural instincts tell them that there is something severely wrong with these individuals. Even the average person can tell that they are therefore, NOT going to make reliable, productive or trustworthy employees. The average person also knows that accommodating, understanding or helping “waria” is well above their pay grade as employers and that their problems are better left in the hands of the mental health professionals. There is nothing “unfair” about this assessment. It is simply the truth. Nor does the job description of “business owner” or “employer” include the implementation of “social justice”. That’s best left to the politicians because “social justice” is a purely political term, and is thus, a bear trap for business. Smart employers know it is best to AVOID any association with “social justice” issues because, as Target, Starbucks, Macy’s, Keurig, NFL, JC Penney’s, and many other employers have learned the hard way, supporting leftist politics publicly, through your business, will destroy your bottom line. The average consumer will simply stop patronizing your company. “Waria” need psychiatric help and they need to be cared for. They don’t need the hot air surrounding “social justice”, nor do they need job offers! What’s “fair”, is to get them off the streets, into a mental health program and give them the physical support they desperately need, which includes the administration of prescription drugs, clean clothes, good food, and warm supervised housing within a state or church operated institution. It’s the only, truly Christian thing to do! Everything else is just TALK!
Only Christianity produces a culture that is color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind and ethnicity-blind because as Christians we all share the same core values based on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
Yes, KQ. Initiatives like these, however, will not be reported in the mainstream media, or even in much of the “Christian Establishment” media:
Instead it’s all about self-aggrandizing liberals who preen, “Look at me, I’m so inclusive!” whilst looking down their noses at Christians (“aren’t they all in the KKK?”) as they (the enlightened ones, not the Christians) chew organic biscotti and sip $5.00 coffee.
They will, someday, pay for their insufferable transgressions but that shouldn’t keep true Christians from loudly pointing out the error of their ways.
I agree. And I believe that that view of people is only generated through the personal adoption of the tenets of Christianity.
I agree, wholeheartedly. When my faith goes through periods of doubt, this is what anchors me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
this makes me think of the song…When My Faith To Christ Grows Weak.
When my love to Christ grows weak
When for deeper faith I seek,
Then in thought I go to thee,
Garden of Gethsemane.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Or as I read somewhere… God does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called. please delete my other remark… it does not fit here… this is too classy of a space to waste words.
LikeLiked by 2 people
oh wow! My daughter has one of the purses that has a Scotty dogs on it from a few years back. she always gets compliments on it! Thank you for this article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lucky daughter! They do design gorgeous things. You’re welcome.
oh! I meant to share with you… What Women Never Hear has you on his BlogRoll. 🙂
Yes. Thank you. Cinnamon was good enough to inform me yesterday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t that interesting? A bit of common sense coming from the strangest place 😉 I’ve found that to be true a few times however. There are many gay people who are rather conservative and support traditional values.
I know. I’ve met them too. Unlike Elton John, most don’t want to change the world to suit their lifestyles, they just want to be left alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had three close gay friends in my 20s – none of whom knew each other. All the friendships sprung out of common interests/affinities that had nothing to do with the fact that these people were gay. I was close to each of them on a deeply personal level and got to know them quite well through long conversations about all kinds of matters (sexual orientation wasn’t one of the topics we discussed much, interestingly enough). They were all private about their orientation (the pejorative “in the closet”) although they did share it with me.
Two of the three are now dead. Of these three, two, both males, were hardcore social conservatives and were not promiscuous. The one that was not a social conservative was going through a political phase (having discovered “lesbian feminism” after marriage to a very abusive man) that I think she would have eventually emerged from had she not died. She was too intelligent and sensitive not to not see through it. She used to talk to me about the hypocrisy of some lesbian feminists that she knew personally, and how they were always letting her down and failing to live up to her ideals (which were quite high). We related as people, independent of her orientation, and the same could be said of all three of these individuals. She knew I was a Christian and she never ran me down for it in the slightest way. She was very tolerant, perhaps grateful for the tolerance I likewise extended to her.
How dare anyone say they can speak for my friends on this particular issue, or any issue for that matter, without having asked them first what they believe? But in order to grasp this, one must reject identity politics in all its forms and instead see individuals as possessing a personality, history, and beliefs of their very own. Perhaps most importantly, one must also see individuals as moral agents–something that appears to be a rather radical notion in this day and age.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You make a really good point about rejecting identity politics. Identity politics have really made a mess of things and interfered with our ability to relate to each other as actual people.
Yes. And that’s why, until “diversity” (differences) overrode Christianity’s inclusiveness (similarities), we were all friendly with each other and trusted each other. Only Christianity produces a culture that is color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind and ethnicity-blind because as Christians we all share the same core values based on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. It makes for a lovely neighborhood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. And I believe that that view of people is only generated through the personal adoption of the tenets of Christianity. I’ve found that non-Christians can be notoriously narrow-minded, dividing and sub-dividing people into smaller and smaller groups until the “diversity” finally defines them, as enemies.
Yeah, and it’s by design isn’t it? What better way to manipulate people by convincing them that others are nothing but part of the collective out to oppress them, as opposed to unique individuals made in the image and likeness of God? If someone is by definition your enemy because of their race, religion, gender, nationality, etc. then you have already justified your reason for dehumanising them.
I’m glad I had these friendships when I was young, because I would be very reluctant to cross that divide today, knowing that so many people have been programmed to despise others, and presume bigotry and ill will on their part, simply on the basis of race, gender, and/or religion.
I know. It’s a very disturbing development. And really quite sad. No one is the better for it.