Gabbana Against Single Sex Parents Message Board and Comments

I agree with Gabbana also. We don't need some fact sheet to tell us. It's common sense. I think it would make the kids confused about who they are in life. Just because people are free to do as they please dosen't make it right. If you as a parent (ask yourself) died would you want your child rasied by a loving str8 family or a loving gay family.

what a ridiculous statement. gay couples are hardly snatching babies away from their mothers... absurd. he's proof that gay people can be as dumb as str8 people. and a note to all those who say that a 'mom and a dad' is ideal: there are NO studies that come to that conclusion and, in fact, several that show quite the opposite. let's try to deal in facts and not preconceived notions or the edicts of religious organizations.

Bless this man for stating the obvious. Of COURSE under duress ANY parenting combination is better than an abusive one. Good grief, people. I say this as an ex-therapist and a woman who was left with 4 girls by a "gay" man after 20 years of marriage. Girls need a male for a father to teach them what to look for in a man. Boys need a mother to become sensitive to females. Period. It's VERY important. Also, parents should NEVER heap their "issues" on to children. Just because gays "want" children....the kids don't "want" gay parents. To say that "being other" is something that gay parents understand and can help their little kiddies with is the sickest, most narcissistic thing I've ever heard. Why would you EVER INFLICT ANY emotional pain on a child? Sorry, I think this guy is dead on and he's my new gay hero!!!

Here's the final word... The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan. Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations. The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed. We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Someone mentioned that we have single parents all the time. However, the existance of single parents does not mean it's a "good thing." We also have automobile accidents, and people die in them all the time. Does that imply that we should drive our cars into lampposts deliberately and kill ourselves? No. A child needs both a mother and a father. This is so ridiculously obvious until it's painful to have to repeat it. Yes, sometimes the child must do without one or the other, or both, but the child will still be allright. That doesn't imply that it's a "good thing" to do without. Two gay parents adopting a child is robbing the child of having both a mother and a father -- like deliberately driving a car into a lamppost. The child will survive, and probably thrive. But why would you inflict this on a child *deliberately*?

Oh My goodness! Common sense, please get alert the thought police. This guy will be clarifying and restaing ho comments for weeks after the thought police get to him.

He can say whatever he wants, doesn't make him an authority on raising children. If single parenting was the reason for the downfall of civilization, we'd be gone long before now. Amazing how the folks wanting to denigrate same sex partners raising children will now "use" words of a gay man to support their claims. Sad. Who buys this guys crap anyway? Who has the money to buy this guys crap?

Gabbanna has the right to say whatever he wants. It is called Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

First and foremost, I would like to hear what the journalist has left out... what was the question that Gabbana was replying to? We see peopleon tv saying inane things, when the question itself was inane. But they edit out the question and run the film as though there was no eliciting question. A favorite way among harried journalists, but it wont reach to the depth of the story, and will also cause the remarks to be out of context if the entire interview is not also run. Clips and out of context reporting can rarely tell the entire story. That a journalist runs a snippet like this that they know is provacative and does not ask/ run the follow up questions and answers, that they know is likely to garner fast and hot reactions... such as 'never buy that product/ film/ idea again,' and 'how dare he/she' and counter-deffenses et al, well, that is sometimes the primary clue that the piece is not a true story, but an 'audience grabber' that will promote lots of comments.. that are then pointed out to marketing... see, our site is drawing X amount of traffic, and it goes on from there Just my two cents worth kub journalist, old school

He is making a lot of sense, but I bet his fellow gay friends don't think he is right.

If straight parents had to jump through as many hoops in order to have a child as gay or lesbian parents will have to do, perhaps there would be fewer miserable children in the world. There would be adoption forms to fill out, money to pay, surrogate mothers to find, the list goes on. Perhaps if everyone had to go through that, rather than five minutes of physical exertion, in order to obtain a small miracle, then people would think twice before making such an enormous decision. Gay, lesbian, single, straight, it doesn't matter. Children should be brought into this world out of a love for what they might grow to be, not out of a desire to see oneself recreated in miniature, or worst of all, because the parents were drunk or strung out and didn't know what they were doing. Gay parents know what kind of otherness it will place on a child to have to grow up having two moms or two dads. They grew up 'other' themselves, and know the teasing that comes along with it, the search for identity and community. Do you think that they are so shallow as to place that kind of burden on a child without thinking? The image of the impetuous, flighty gay man who goes to bars and clubs and parties is a stereotype, not reality for a number of gay men. The reality are men and women who have real jobs, work 9 to 5 like so many others, have all the responsibilities of being an adult. Some people choose to add child-rearing to that list of responsibilities, and I admire those people for the sacrifices and effort they will have to make. In the end, it's the quality of parenting that counts, and that entirely depends on the character of the parents, not what sex they are, or whether they fit the 'norm' or not. Interestingly enough, there are cultures where communal child-rearing is the way of life, and although the children do know who their biological parents are, everyone has a hand in parenting them, just as one person suggested might be the end result of allowing gays and lesbians to become parents. This isn't some horrible fate, it's just a different way of living and a different culture from the one many in the US were raised with.

I'm opposed to people who wear Dolce and Gabbana. People need to not wear overpriced tacky clothing. If there's more affordable and less obnoxious clothing available, then that's what people should wear.

Thank-you for speaking the truth. What adults want is not always what is in the best interests of a child. One commentor stated that they have not seen info on the experiences of a child raised in a same sex parent household. An article in the December 9, 2006 issue of World magazine discusses interviews with children and grown children in that very situation. Very interesting reading. http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12494

So if the argument for gay parenting is that two parents are better than 1, why not 3, or 4, or more? Why not sanction "love communities" where any number of people of mixed genders are "committed in love" to each other and to raising "their" children, whom they "love"? Gay parenting advocates surely must see this is the road down which their arguments will necessarily take us.... Without any sense of normalcy or definition of family, there are no limits to the types of "families" than can be created.

great point rlean. I really believe many singles (gay and straight) who adopt or otherwise acquire a child are basically not thinking about or really caring that much about the best interest of the child but instead are into the "status" of having a child to satisfy their own ego/desires/needs/expectations/pressures from others. It is not coincidental that it takes both a male and a female to create a child and I believe that it is that way because a child needs both male and female influences, not only for its creation but for nurturing, teaching, role modeling and molding of a well-balanced person.

Shouldn't we be trying to resolve the problem of single parent homes where the fathers are absent from their lives before deciding that two parents of the same sex shouldn't be able to raise a child? I've seen children raised in single family homes where the father was active part of their life and the child was fine. I've seen a child raised in two parent homes and the child was bad and is in jail today around the age of 24. What I haven't seen is a child raised in a two parent home of the same sex so I can't speak from that point of view. I also do not know any children raised with a parent completey absent from their lifes. The thing is we are all assuming what is good for a child when we really don't know. Its all environment I agree but the love and support one parent or even two parents from the same sex provide might be enough for the child. There are many examples in the wild where the growth of an animal isn't dependant on two parents. Maybe the two parent things is just some myth. Maybe every child is different. Would you agree that a two parent home where the parents fight all the time isn't optimal? Should the children be taken away form them? I simply don't see where any of us should judge and/or restrict two parents or even one parent from raising a child when we lack the full knowledge of what is important as the human brain is simply to complex and signficantly different from each other that no one person can fully understand. -david

The fact that there are poorly qualified heterosexual parents is not in itself a vindication of homosexual parenting (where you also could have alcoholics and abusers). The question is not whether certain gay parents might be preferable to certain straight parents, but whether decent homosexual parents are an equal alternative to decent heterosexual parents. Common sense tells most of us that a child would prefer a mother and father (yes, even the orphans). Where we have a choice, we should opt for that preference. Alas, common sense doesn't speak to some of us...And don't tell me for a second that my father could have done for me what my mother did, and vice versa. Men and women are actually (surprise) different.

It is VERY interesting to me that the people who are gay (clearly) are the very ones who accuse ANY dissenters of their parenting as HATING. Apparently NO ONE can disagree with a homosexual...they are just always right.. and to disagree automatically means you are HATEFUL. Of course, THEY are so full of love and understanding, it just leaps out in every comment they make...using such terms as 'idiot' is just a term of affection! Kinda makes you wonder what child would have a chance of growing up 'straight'.

David The point her is very simple, we should strive to give our children the best, that is a Mom and a Dad, don't handycap them from birth. If you want to be a parent, at least try to do right by them. 40% of our children born in this country now are basterds, how horrible is that. 40% of our children will grow up knowing poverty for most of their childhoods. Children need Moms and dads. it is that simple, it takes a mom and a dad to make a child, it is optimal for a mom and dad to raise a child.

I was raised in band camp. I didn't turn out that well. I have a nervous disorder.

A genius wrote: "The sex role stereotypes that dictate how a mother or father should act have been outdated since the 1950's." Yes, and isn't it interesting that rates of child and teen depression, violence, murder, and suicide have been going UP and UP and UP, now that these "stereotypes" are not the norm? THINK ABOUT IT.

Finally. A person with some common sense on parenting.

So, I guess that when a child's mother dies, he/she should immediately be turned over to the authorities because he/she can't be raised without a mother. Give me a break. This man's argument is absurd. He assumes that a man can not provide the same care as a woman to a child. There are millions of children around the world being raised without a mother for many different reasons. These children are not deprived of anything. If the gay-haters out there would stop being so judgemental and nosey, gay families would have a much easier time integrating themselves into society. It's your responsibility to be inclusive and to not whisper behind their backs.

So if a child/parent loses their significant other should that child be taken away and put in a two family home? Honestly a majority of children aren't raised in optimal homes. There are quite a few cases of mothers not letting the father see the child often after divorces in the US and the US courts do nothing about it as it always seems to be the mother's perogative. A child having two parents is better than one especially when they are two loving parents. There is no denying though that two loving parents that are from each each would be optimal. When you consider that a majority of children aren't raised in an optimal conditions though why should we restrict two potential loving parents of the same sex? -david

I agree with Mr. Gabbana, it is refreshing to see someone say what he believes to be true, even if unpopular. children deserve the best parents can give them. There is nothing wrong with two adults living an alternet life style, but on one has the right to force another person to live that life style with them.

What utter nonsense. The sex role stereotypes that dictate how a mother or father should act have been outdated since the 1950's. I would rather have grown up with two moms or two dads than an abusive, alcoholic father and a cold, despondent mother. It has nothing to do with the sex of the parents. It has everything to do with the function of the individuals involved.

If you morons really want to start going down the road of deciding that certain parents are better than others, then perhaps we should not allow people with low IQ's to have children, or people with low incomes. After all, it really is not an ideal situation to be born into poverty, so we just shouldn't let them procreate at all, right?

Gabbana is right, common sense prevails, neither 2 dads or 2 mothers is optimal, it takes 1 of each. Shouldn't we strive for optimal when raising the next generation? To Furney: They're not talking about orphans. A child who's mother dies had no choice in the matter, but to intentially bring a child into this world and purposely deprive it of either a father or mother is cruel. If gays want to adopt hard to place children, more power to them, any parent is better than none, but it's selfishness that leads them to produce their own because "they" want it. What about what's in the best interst of the child?

Finally, a gay person who's not so selfish in his desire to raise a child as to ignore the obvious best interests of a child to have a mother and a father. Kudos to you Mr. Gabbana. And your ignorant comment, Mr. Fumey, is so overused in so many different situations I'm getting tired of hearing it. You cannot use an unfortunate situation to justify an abnormal "2nd-best" scenario. No one wishes upon a child that his mother die giving birth, but the fact that such things happen does not justify the sanctioning of another bad situation. This is the same idiotic argument people make in favor of abortion--better kill the kid than suffer him to be raised in a house with an unwed mother who's "not ready to raise a child."

He's having a baby by a friend using artificial insemination? Who will be the "mother" to his child? Or is he planning to raise the child alone? Either way, he's a total hypocrite. And he's correct. Gays such as himself SHOULD NOT be parents.

What on God's green earth does "the emporer has no clothes" have to do with same sex parenting? Lib - you're a moron. He's against same sex parenting and is about to become one through a surrogate mother? Geez -- Lib and Gabbie are smoking from the same crack pipe.

Good for him. He's a realist.

Thank you Gabbana! Finally, someone not afraid to point out the obvious, that the emperor has no clothes. And in response to the other posters, Gabbana (nor anyone else that I know of) has ever suggested that gay couples should not be able to rescue an abandoned child. He is simply breaking the political correct 'taboo' against asserting that some situations are more ideal than others.

I will never buy another thing from Dolce-Gabbana because of this ignorant, self-hating man!

What about children that were abandoned, or their mother died at birth ? what about orphans. Wouldn't it be better for those children to have any kind of parents that care, better than none? Also ,a very good gay in drag could be the bestest mother anyone have ever experienced!