The Oncoming
Human Rights Crisis…Caused by the LGBT Movement
By Robert
Oscar Lopez
It started,
as so many human rights disasters do, in the name of love. It was commonplace in the antebellum Americas
to hear of plantation owners expressing love for their slaves. Even Frederick Douglass admits that many
times slaves, while alone, vied to see who could praise his master the
highest. Did not Robespierre begin with
love for his countrymen? For that
matter, didn’t Castro?
History
repeats. The movement to liberate same-sex love began because people loved each
other. Somehow, through convoluted
digressions, it has become a tyrannical octopus seeking to control life and
death itself.
The Rubicon
was crossed when the gay movement sided with human trafficking; graft-ridden
dirty deals with warlords for orphanages; bio-engineering, baby-farming, and
emotional deprivation of innocent children by forcing them to replace a
biological parent with a fictional same-sex partner. Naturally, any child forced into such a
psychically traumatic origin fantasy who feels resentful about it will be
cursed by its caretakers as not only ungrateful, but also a homophobe.
A year ago,
I was afraid to fight what is happening in the LGBT community. Unaware of
what the response would be, I published some articles about being the
product of gay parenting and received hundreds of e-mails from around the world
pleading with me to fight against a growing human-rights crisis caused by the
LGBT movement. They wrote from so many
places, so many countries; they had such eloquence and force; they were
children of sperm donors, troubled adoptees, people agonized by the
baby-farming in India and elsewhere, gays horrified at what is being done in
the name of “gay families,” religious people, atheists, people who know for
whatever reason that buying babies and erasing fatherhood or motherhood is not
the fruit of love.
I cannot
stay silent anymore. My race forbids it;
perhaps, being the descendant of Puerto Rican slaves and knowing that the LGBT
movement is reducing people — children, sperm donors, surrogate mothers — to
chattel. I have assembled a document
listing the main points of urgency. I
fear that the only movement that can take action would have to be global; in
the United States, as I explain, the academy, the fourth estate, the democratic
process, and the judiciary are all ill-equipped to stop what the LGBT movement
is doing.
It didn’t
have to happen this way. As a child, I
lived in a gay community that was still struggling and embattled. My mother, a lesbian, was a survivor of
tremendous repression and taught me to be a survivor, too. It ended up that we were a gay household when
nobody had a name for that. If
Wordsworth is right and the child is the father of the man, then I was molded
as a sexual outsider looking in, gazing from a jealous fringe upon a world full
of people who had the luxury to take their mannerisms and interactions for
granted.
As a
teenager, I remember when AIDs came. To
see people you love wither alone, forgotten, staving off death while also still
crippled by stigmas — such moments teach you the importance of love in social
change.
But then a
funny thing happened to the gay world.
Love started to give way to hate.
There was a poignancy and grace about surviving in the earlier days of
gay history. By the late 1990s, an
overfunded and politically connected elite had taken over gay rhetoric,
claiming to speak in the name of everyone who had ever felt a forbidden
love. The elite stentorian agitators
didn’t have elegance. They hit people
over the head. They rounded up heaps of
money, hobnobbed with celebrities and well-heeled politicians, and started
spending too much time at galas to have any sense that they were becoming, to
put it bluntly, disgusting.
Suicides
committed by teenage boys they’d never otherwise deign to speak to, let alone
think of, became martyrdoms to be brandished like sacrificial goats. Then there was a reign of terror about sexual
categories, which still persists: people who leave the gay lifestyle, people
who had homosexual pasts but don’t wear them on their sleeve, people who want
to have a choice about how to identify or at least allow choices to others,
were all suddenly the enemy.
I saw the
loving part drift off, the anima of a living soul being gently carried away
like a cloud of mist, leaving only the animus behind. I’d have to blink and remind myself I was
simply looking at Hillary Rosen or Rachel Maddow.
What is the
slogan that I speak of with greatest horror?
“I deserve the same rights as anyone else.” That might be a harmless slogan, except not
when the “right” you are referring to is the right to “build a family” to show
that “you are capable of love.”
“I deserve
the same rights” eventually means that a same-sex couple deserves to have a
child provided to them, even though they can’t conceive it themselves.
If straight
couples get to have undiluted custody of such a child, so should gay
couples. So they must have the “right”
to enforce contracts preventing surrogate mothers from wanting their babies
back, the “right” to have sperm banks operate and sell them sperm, the “right”
to jump the queue in line for Catholic Charities, the “right” to farm babies in
the third world, the “right” to extort gratitude from the children they’ve
placed in these situations, and the “right” to blind a child to at least one of
his or her biological parents. If any of
these “rights” is not held up with the full force of a state apparatus, then
the slogan fails. Hence, we see the case
of Dred Scott revived. To be treated as
first-class citizens, gays need the government to cow their chattel into
submission.
Underneath
the appeals to “love” lies a morass of brutally gory market mechanisms,
approaching science fiction. The changes
in gay culture have created a large pool of same-sex couples who not only want
children without involving themselves with the opposite sex, but also feel that
any qualms are banned forms of hate speech.
Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll found that each generation of Americans
is becoming gayer: now, over 6% of citizens under the age of 29 identify as
LGBT. As recently as three years ago,
polling consistently found LGBTs to make up less than 2% of the population.
The fight
for marriage has never been about marriage.
Marriage is the only way to have legal cover and shield themselves from
criticism for their bioethical stunts.
Market demand
is a powerful thing, and it is growing because of the increase in LGBT couples
as well as the cultural messages convincing young gays that they will be given
children or else society is oppressing them.
Here in Los Angeles, I’ve seen the eerie proliferation of designer
babies in gayborhoods, and the increasingly anesthetized reaction of gay
couples’ friends. People go to
third-world getaways to pick out babies, place ads for surrogates who can give
them a certain eye color, and even collaborate with human trafficking. Never forgetful of my own pains as a
lesbian’s son in the 1970s, I see the faces of these gay couple’s children, and
sometimes, I have to run away and cry. I
know the dazed glare, the powerlessness of these children, their helpless desire
to please their parents, their fear of showing their parents any sign that the
arrangement has been hurtful.
And yet, I
can scarcely forget, this is only the beginning. While some say “it gets better,” all signs
show that it will grow far worse. LGBT
activists have been frustrated so far by the largest Western nations’
resistance to legalizing gay marriage.
In this table, a Francophone researcher discusses the gay-marriage
statistics from Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Quebec. Remember that France, Germany, Great Britain,
and Italy, the more populous nations of Europe, have still resisted full
marriage equality. Already in tiny
Belgium, 5% of marriages are same-sex.
What will happen with the combined populations of Germany, France, Great
Britain, Italy, and the United States — 570 million people in all — legalize
gay marriage, with 5% of that mass being same-sex couples looking to buy
babies?
We are
staring into the dawn of a new slave trade.
Rather than let the Middle Passage happen and then spend centuries
trying to exonerate our nation, we must be “on the right side of history.” Stop gay marriage — not because of hate for
gay people, but because the machine that is turning people into chattel must be
stopped. The only way to break the cycle
and wake everyone up is stop gay marriage.
Robert Oscar
Lopez is a Professor of English at California State University and the author of Johnson Park.
Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_oncoming_human_rights_crisiscaused_by_the_lgbt_movement.html#ixzz2QM3z8a4N
