Heaven knows, the Italian economy is in a bad enough state. Now its finance minister is sitting with his head in his hands, thinking, "Really? Was this quite necessary?"
Designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana gave an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama in which they were frank about their views on the modern family. It turns out that in spite of their own homosexuality – they were a couple until recently and have remained friends – when it comes to the family, they're startlingly traditional.
They condemned the use of surrogate mothers by gay couples who want to have a child, saying that children need "a mother and a father". Dolce, in part of the interview, said: "I'm not convinced with what I call chemical children, a rented uterus, semen selected from a catalogue. And later you go and explain to these children who the mother is."
Later they said: "We, a gay couple, say no to gay adoptions. Enough chemical children and wombs for rent."
Even if we disagree with their comments, most of us don't live the sort of lifestyle where we could dream of putting economic pressure on the pair through withdrawing our custom. Elton John, however, does – and as the parent of children conceived by artificial insemination, he has Views on this.
Cue a social media storm which has seen numerous celebrities, including Victoria Beckham and Courtney Love, vow to boycott their designs. Dolce and Gabbana have admitted that it might harm their business, but have come out fighting: they issued a statement denying they were criticising gay parenting as such but accusing Elton John of "fascism" in his comments.
In the normal way of things, celebrity spats are of no more intrinsic worth than any other. But this one's different, because of what it reveals about the dark side of public discourse. Let's be clear: one of the reasons for the public outrage directed against D&G is their apparent denigration of the "chemical children" produced to order. Elton John's outrage was genuine and real: "How dare you refer to my beautiful children as 'synthetic'," he wrote.
And he was right: when you step into the territory of human relationships, and particularly relationships between parents and children, you need to walk very delicately indeed. Anything anyone says about human reproduction needs to start with an affirmation that every human being, however conceived, able or disabled, is a child of God, unique and perfect. And any child reading what's said about them needs to be sure that it's said with a loving acknowledgment of them and of their parents, married, cohabiting, straight or gay. On this test of common sense, D&G scored an epic fail.
But, but. Conservatives have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot when they talk about issues like this because of the language they use. The trouble is that they generate so much outrage about how they said something that no one listens to what they said.
In this case, there's a serious point to be made. The trouble is that the issue of parenting gets mixed up with the whole messy business of sex, and the moral weight conservatives attach to the latter tends to crash into the former with a hefty thump.
Let's be honest: traditional families – mum, dad and 2.4 children – don't always work. And gay people can make marvellous parents. Denying this on ideological grounds, as some Christians do, doesn't work either: look at the evidence. Single people can make wonderful parents too, adoptive or otherwise.
But admitting this doesn't mean that questions about how children are conceived, and why, simply go away. Are there simply no issues left to discuss about what's best for a child? Is it really so absurd to fret about whether a child conceived by a sperm donor might not cope too well when they come to think about their origins? Is questioning the wisdom of deliberately choosing to bring a child into the world without a father simply unacceptable? Isn't it reasonable to point out the dangers, as well as the blessings, of the vastly expanded choices that technology makes available to us, which can arguably make the creation of life less of a gift and more of a lifestyle choice?
Read some of the hysterical reactions to the D&G interview, and there's no doubt: the deal is done, there are no questions to ask and anyone who thinks there are is a hateful bigot. Here's Ed Smith writing for IBTimes, for instance: "Calling IVF-conceived children 'synthetic', and espousing nothing but a 'traditional family', in this day and age, is so utterly stupid it belies interrogation. Arguing with these views would be like trying to explain to your dog why it shouldn't eat chocolate – you just can't penetrate with reason this level of ignorance."
He concludes: "It may sometimes seem like a dogpile, as if columnists and users of social media are pouncing on the people who make offensive remarks, just to give themselves a sense of satisfaction, but it's better that than homophobia going unchecked. These attitudes need to die. And I'm not particularly concerned about the way that they're killed."
This polarisation of opinion is depressingly illiberal. It makes conversation impossible, just as the knee-jerk, foot-in-mouth responses of conservatives do (and how delightful it is to write a column annoying both sides).
Now, it's possible to shrug and say, "It's just the internet" – but these are the arguments that shape opinion that ends up shaping policy. When you dig a little deeper, it's a row at the playground gate because a parent's aggrieved by a perceived slur on their children. From handbags at dawn it escalates into a full-blown culture war and the Italian economy in tatters. But it doesn't have to: if we listen to each other respectfully and calmly – and think much harder before we speak – we might learn more than we ever imagined we could.
Mark Woods is a contributing editor for Christian Today. Follow Mark @RevMarkWoods.
