Authors-choice: Hope & Revival

It is absurd that any opinion in support of the natural family (one man one woman) results in immediate accusations, allegations, insults, and even smears campaigns

In the issue of Panorama magazine released on March 18, the famous fashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have a long interview, in which they express support for the natural family.

Their campaign, #DGfamily, launched some time ago from their fashion label. Dolce told Panorama: “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. [Talking to the journalist] Would you ever accept to be a daughter of the chemistry? Procreation needs to be an act of love.”

And further, answering the question “Would you have wanted to be fathers?”, The same Domenico Dolce replied: “I am gay, I cannot have a child. . . . Life has a proper natural pathway; there are things that mustn’t be modified. And one of these things is family.”

That was enough to unleash the attacks of the gay lobby against the two designers and their brands. Unfortunately the usual accusations of discrimination and homophobia (accusations which are oddly leveled against two homosexuals), have been advanced by Elton John and Ricky Martin, who have started a boycott campaign.

Other entrepreneurs have declared their support for the natural family and suffered fierce attack and international boycott campaigns orchestrated by the gay lobby. Many have caved under pressure and reversed their positions. (Courtesy of http://citizengo.org.)

This is what Pope Benedict 16^th warned about in his book, “Light of the World”. He said, ‘A new intolerance is spreading, that is quite obvious. There are well-established standards of thinking that are supposed to be imposed on everyone. These are then announced in terms of so-called “negative tolerance”. For instance, when people say that for the sake of negative tolerance [i.e. “not offending anyone”] there must be no crucifix in public buildings. With that we are basically experiencing the abolition of tolerance, for it means, after all, that religion, that the Christian faith is no longer allowed to express itself visibly.

When, for example, in the name of non-discrimination, people try to force the Catholic Church to change her position on homosexuality or the ordination of women, then that means that she is no longer allowed to live out her own identity and that, instead, an abstract, negative religion is being made into a tyrannical standard that everyone must follow. That is then seemingly freedom – for the sole reason that it is liberation from the previous situation.

In reality, however, this development increasingly leads to an intolerant claim of a new religion, which pretends to be generally valid because it is reasonable, indeed, because it is reason itself, which knows all and, therefore, defines the frame of reference that is now supposed to apply to everyone. In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished.”