Sir Elton John vs Dolce & Gabanna

[Beaux]

Morality is always personal. It is also collective. To the degree that it is shared by a group, it becomes accepted or at least common.

I'm not having any bumper stickers printed up any time soon, so a forum seems a most appropriate place to share those personal opinions.

$35,000 is more than most working class families spend on a car. They surely don't spend that on having a baby.

Setting a price threshold on how couples should decide on whether they can "afford" children -- gee, that's pretty moralizing all by itself, and not at all elitist.

From a recent U.S. census, the overall median income for an individual was $28k. That a gross income. Take out taxes, car payments, insurance, and rent/mortgage, and no one's saving up $35k any time soon.

The average personal savings rate in the US in 2015 is 5.5%. If median income is $28k, an individual is saving only $1400 per year. A $35k baby isn't happening anytime soon.

And nice work labeling the poor as those who choose that lifestyle.

"As usual" you are just being pissy and petulant, carrying on a forum feud based on your pettiness.

Please. I asked you before, and you never answered, but have you ever gone back and read your own posts? Barring the posts where you were flirting with new posters, too a tee all of your posts are condesnding and judgemental. Read through them yourself.

A "Forum Feud"? Pfft! Again, AS USUAL, you give yourself and your opinions more value than they are worth. I have never felt the need to attack you or call you names. I simply corrected you because once again you choose to condescend when faced with people making decisions that don't fit into your narrow morality.

~Beaux

[Beaux]

Beaux, have you ruled out adoption? Who do you plan to have impregnated, if you don't mind me asking?

I am a huge proponent of adoption, having a sister who was adopted, but there is a big chasm between what people believe the adoption system in the US is like and what the adoption system is ACTUALLY like.

The most readily affordable form of adoption is adoption through the Foster Care System, unfortunatly, when dealing with DCS you are subject to the rules and predijuces of the state you live in....and we live in South Carolina. Also, this process of adoption relays on the biological parent either willingly relinquishing or leaglly losing their parental rights, which in ~99% of these cases takes YEARS. Meaning: the odds of getting to adopt a baby from foster care is really really really low (though there are TONS of older children in the system that need homes). We are home-studied and approved in South Carolina for Foster care, and plan to adopt an older child in the future, but at our ages we are feeling the pressure to have a baby before we are simply too old to raise one.

Private adoption is, by far, you best bet if you want to adopt a baby. However, it runs anywhere from $30,000 to $90,000.

So, for us, surrogacy just makes more sense at this time. We are close friends with a couple who own an international surrogacy agency, and they provide dossiers on prospective surrogates, as well as egg donors (we already have our eggs from a previous donor, if we don't use all of our "clutch" we will donate the remainder to a surrogacy organization for gay men that has helped us in the past).

~Beaux

[Darius]

Beaux, thanks for sharing that. Does one of you plan on contribution the sperm and if so, which one of you?

[LJay]

I shall certainly not be purchasing and Dolce & Gabbana.

For all I know, they make fancy chocolates.

[Hardheaded1]

I have never felt the need to attack you or call you names. I simply corrected you because once again you choose to condescend when faced with people making decisions that don't fit into your narrow morality.

~Beaux

There is a consistent pattern of posting attacking posts, which do not require name calling.

My posts are as varied as the topics.

If new posters find problems with them, I'm don't see that on the forum, despite your policing for them.

I am plenty comfortable with morally disliking D&G, the subject of this thread.

[Lexington]

Sounds like something for us to be horrified about for a couple weeks, and to type about on various websites, before forgetting altogether.

Lex

[meridannight]

[MENTION=21778]Lexington[/MENTION], that's how it usually unfolds. i remember a while back there was a boycott against some hotel chain owner or something, also by the gay community, can't remember if it was something the guy said or did, but a whole lot of celebrities got on board advocating for people not to stay at his hotels and it got a couple of headlines, and now --- i can't remember who it was, who the celebrities boycotting him were...nothing.

[Beaux]

There is a consistent pattern of posting attacking posts, which do not require name calling.

My posts are as varied as the topics.

If new posters find problems with them, I'm don't see that on the forum, despite your policing for them.

I am plenty comfortable with morally disliking D&G, the subject of this thread.

"
"As usual" you are just being pissy and petulant, carrying on a forum feud based on your pettiness."

That is attacking and calling names. What you think we cannot read? I have read all of your posts, even the pathetic ones where you shamelessly hit on new forum members, and yes your posts are varied, but rather than offer advice, you condescend and moralize. I am not "policing" the forums for anyone other than myself-- when you make an offensive post (like the initial one on this thread) I will continue to respond to them.
So, suck it up and start thinking before you post. I am not the only person who has been offended by your posts.
~Beaux

[Iceblink]

[MENTION=21778]Lexington[/MENTION], that's how it usually unfolds. i remember a while back there was a boycott against some hotel chain owner or something, also by the gay community, can't remember if it was something the guy said or did, but a whole lot of celebrities got on board advocating for people not to stay at his hotels and it got a couple of headlines, and now --- i can't remember who it was, who the celebrities boycotting him were...nothing.

That is a boycott against the Beverly Hills Hotel and Hotel Bel-Air, owned by the Sultan of Brunei, who implemented death by stoning for homosexuals in Brunei. Undoubtedly we are unknowingly supporting businesses that do not support the interests and morals each of have, but there are some things that are difficult to accept once I know about something so awful as this, it would be very difficult for me to ever stay at one of those hotels or even go to one of the bars or restaurants in the hotels. The boycott may not be getting the press it once was, but it is something I have not forgotten. Death by stoning is difficult to take lightly.

Boycotts do sometimes work. After the Barilla controversy and boycott, Guido Barilla apologized in a video on Facebook and when not many warmed to the apology, he issued a second apology. Barilla introduced new lgbt inclusive policies and worked with gay organizations. On HRC's equality index Barilla was before the controversy began rated as one of the worst companies. Last year, Barilla was given the perfect score of 100, something the HRC gave to only 366 companies. Getting that score is difficult and some very good companies for gays and lesbians do not get that score. Costco gets a 90.