"Homo-eduphobia"? More like "You're a Fucking Moron"

Right, so first:  I'm changing the format of my current series "Christianity does not Teach Good Morality" a bit.  The next part will deal strictly with the gospels, and after that I'll go over the next few.  Since the NT is the "focus" of Christianity, I feel I should *really* get in-depth here.
Second, I came across this bit of keyboard diarrhea from some dick named Robert Lopez from "American Stinker Thinker" (link goes to Fark discussion).  I think it also deserves some...attention, so let's get right to it.

Are you honored to read the words of a “rising star”?  According to the Human Rights Campaign’s September 15 report, “Export of Hate,” that’s me.  I’m apparently so famous and powerful that I rank second on their list of the most dangerous extremists launching homophobia from American soil.  I have supernatural powers that nobody could have guessed.  With no organizational affiliation, and nothing but a $65,000-a-year job with which I support a family of four in Los Angeles, I can make the whole world hate gays.

 I also think this is a bit weird.  I've never heard of you until today.  Granted, I don't regularly follow HRC or the Stinker, but still, this is a bit odd to me.  And it seems I was right.  You aren't "second" as you claim.  You are halfway down their list. (link has link to a .pdf file on their server).  And - obviously, since you admit to not being the only one on this list - it's not just you; you are part of a machine.

The Human Rights Campaign’s yearly revenues are estimated by some as over $40 million.  Their principals meet regularly with the president of the United States.  Yet they used up valuable donations to spy on and stalk me.  Because I’m really deadly like that.  I mean, I’m alive, I disagree with them, and I have a computer.  Call in the CIA!

They didn't "Stalk" you.  They used publicly available records and news publications to compile this list.  Rhetoric like that is dishonest at *best*.

 

Did I strap a suicide vest on?  Am I a terrorist?  Have I called for countries overseas to pass anti-sodomy laws?  Do I encourage people to hang gays?  Am I a promoter of ex-gay conversion therapy?  Do I call homosexuality an abomination or homosexuals bad people?

If you’ve read any of my work on American Thinker, you surely know that the answer to all those questions is no.

Yes to calling gays "bad people".  And you have demonized them (this counts as "calling them bad people"), as you will admit below. 

No, I do something far worse: I read a lot and speak seven languages.  Oh, and I have a passport and don’t die of stage fright when interviewed in front of large numbers of people.  These are the ingredients of a DEFCON-1 threat for the gay lobby.  A man of color who can read Aimé Césaire in the original French freaks them out a lot more than a man of color who runs off to join ISIS.

A few details: I have publicly supported civil unions.  I support foster care eligibility for gay couples, because foster care is not a permanent reassignment of parenthood.

Just in case you missed it, I am bisexual and don’t hide it or apologize for it.  And my mom was a lesbian.  But let’s not get into that.

Agreed, it's irrelevant.  Entirely.  You should not have brought it up.  But you ARE against same sex adoption and marriage.  And that is a problem.  You are attempting to deny families that *already exist* validity.  It doesn't matter that you can speak French.  You are an asshole.

Like an obsessive-compulsive one-note Charlie, my refrain has been, for years: children have an inalienable right to a mother and father, cannot be bought or sold, and are entitled to know their origins.  Whether it is straight people or gay people using divorce, surrogacy, trafficking, or any other means to deny people these rights, I oppose it.

So you're against adoption in general, then?  And since WHEN is anything on that list other than trafficking "deny[ing]" ""...children [their] inalienable right...to know their origins"?  And by going against adoption like you are and have, you deny children that "right to a mother and father" that you laud so much.

You also assume a "perfect world" where there are no childbirth/rearing issues or premature deaths ever, and that is not the case. You also assume that divorce necessarily removes the ability of a child to know their origins or deny them a mother or father.  And you also assume that neither of the parents getting a divorce is abusive.  You ignore so many variables that your position is laughable.

This is a teachable moment because it reveals a great deal about what makes the Human Rights Campaign tick.  They’re after your kids, plain and simple; all their other issues are mere window dressing.

 No, they're after fucks like you who demonize them constantly, just like you did here by saying that they're after our kids.

They have convinced themselves that gays are a tribe unto themselves, so their consuming goal is to populate the tribe so they don’t disappear.

Actually it seems that you have convinced yourself of that.  Everyone else thinks that gay people are just people who like to fuck people of the same gender.  You're going to need evidence to support your claims of "dere after owr kidz!1!"

Parenthood is their great white whale.  They want to have children to love them and call them Mom and Dad.  They need to get those children from you because biology prevents them from siring them naturally.  Gentlemen readers, these folks are trying to find a way to get the sperm out of your testicles and into their laboratories; lady readers, these folks need to find a way to implant an embryo of their sperm in your womb, keep you obedient during the gestation, and take your baby away forever.

Seriously?  What. the . FUCK.  No, really, what the blue bloody hell did I just read?  First off, there are already gay people who have children that love them and call them Mom and Dad.  Some of those children are even genetically related to them.  Others were adopted, just like Angelina Jolie did with her kids.   They don't need you to carry their baby for them.  Granted, it is an option that they can take, but they have no need (nor want, AFAIK) to force you to implant your sperm in to their womb or to implant their sperm into yours.  There are enough kids without parents looking for good homes and enough willing surrogates that this forced surrogate bullshit is entirely unnecessary, and only useful to demonize them further.

And let's back up even further.  You claim a "right to a mother and father".  What of a right to a home where they don't get abused?  Again, I bring up abusive parents.  And other factors that might separate them from their birth parents that makes adoption by a gay couple a far more attractive choice.  And just what, may I ask, makes this a "right"?  And once again I bring up those that are already being raised by gay people.  Should we take those kids out of their stable homes and put them up for adoption, in some cases for a second time?  Fuck. You. 

The main item on the gay lobby’s agenda is patently insane. 

No, your claims about it are.

 People don’t generally want to let lesbians milk sperm out of their testicles.  People don’t usually like the idea of gay men gestating babies in their wombs and then taking them away.  (And no, “visitation” plans where these gamete donors get to see their progeny a few times a month are not a good arrangement; that stuff’s really creepy.)

 Usually, lesbians don't want cock.  That's what makes them fucking "lesbians".  And do you understand what it means to be a surrogate?

And at least with me, these HRC lackeys cannot pull the old “are you saying my children are worth any less?” routine.  Just because you control a human being doesn’t mean that’s your child.  Even if someone is your child, criticizing you is not the same as insulting your child.  This is basic, but somehow the HRC manages to whitewash the complexities.  Despite all the choreographed photographs of happy gay couples with children, people generally do not like growing up and knowing that half of them was sold to a gay couple.

Actually, that IS their child.  They fucking raised it.  Or are all adoptions (again) suddenly null and void because they aren't "really" the parents because they didn't contribute to the genetic makeup of the child they invited into their home and raised like their own?  Let's take it even further:  YOUR children aren't your own, despite your contributions to their genetic makeup:  you just control them.  And your "criticism" amounts to ADVOCATING TAKING THEIR CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEM you piece of shit.

In America, a large segment of the population has been lulled into accepting same-sex parenting.  Virtually everywhere else, there are roadblocks, as there should be.  The European Court of Human Rights [link to hate site removed] recently ruled that gay marriage is not a human right.  The U.N. Human Rights Council recently voted to affirm the centrality of the family in international law, citing the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, [link does not go to actual declaration] whose seventh and ninth articles would seem to nullify any legal basis for same-sex parenting.

First, that is the EUROPEAN court of human rights.  Not the AMERICAN court.  We have to deal with AMERICAN law, and precedent is saying otherwise, you cock.  Not to mention that the ruling of the court is technically nonbinding, and that the member countries can say "Fuck you, yes it is."

Second:  The Declaration of the Rights of the child - which you DID NOT LINK TO BUT I WILL - DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL, you lying piece of shit.

 

The people at HRC might be amazingly illiterate when it comes to geography[irrelevant link to a book on slavery removed, another demonizing attempt], but all it takes is a decade or so of Americans talking to people in countries like Canada (where selling sperm and eggs is illegal [self-fellating link removed]) for the lapse in judgment to end and for people to wake up, saying, “Hey, this is really weird.”

Nobody is selling sperm or eggs.  Bringing this up is irrelevant, as surrogacy is legal in Canada.

I made four trips to Europe and visited the United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy, and France.  That’s it.  I never even did anything in Canada or Mexico.  If I had gone to those countries with a church to preach from Leviticus, nobody at HRC would care.

The four countries I visited have very little homophobia and a lot of public support for legislation protecting gays from discrimination.  (Also, anyone who goes to France knows that nobody exports ideas to France – they don’t like to be told what to believe.)  So it is a losing battle to play the pity card in such locales as a way to deflect attention from the fact that gays are stealing people’s DNA to engineer filial cyborgs.

And yet you stoked the flames of violence in France.  THAT is the issue, you cock.  And there is. NO. STEALING.  All transactions are CONSENTING, or do you not understand what that term means?  It wouldn't surprise me, as you and your ilk are constantly comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and zoophilia. You're demonizing is annoying, and is what landed you on that list in the first place.  You are free to be against gay people, but you DON'T get to be evil about it.  My old Comparative Religions professor defined evil, in part, as "demonizing or dehumanizing someone or a group of someones."  I have a feeling he, as a pastor, would agree with my assessment of your actions, despite (possibly) disagreeing with me on my position of homosexuality as a whole (though he might agree with me on the "equal rights" part:  gay people never came up in the course.)

But here is what drives HRC bonkers about my trips to those particular countries: these are places where there are sufficient barriers to commercial surrogacy so that gay couples from there have to fly to California to buy babies from paid breeders.  (HRC seems to want to keep secret that the international gay lobby has turned American women into incubation ovens, and instead of slaves originating in Africa, they now originate in Anaheim.)

That.  Is not.  THE ISSUE!  And surrogacy is not the main way gay people bring children into their families.=.  And now you have just called women "slaves" with no justification.

That’s the other thing. Not only does the HRC explode into hysteria when they see me traveling to Paris and – gasp! – talking to people in French.  They also hate when I bring up history.  They love to compare themselves to black people.  Their comparisons are vaguely based on their sense that black people were enslaved and held captive, while gay teenagers didn’t get to go to a prom, and isn’t that all a similar kind of suffering?  I mean, isn’t the Middle Passage a lot like the pain of not having a bridal registry for two men at Nordstrom’s?

No, but your constant demonizing of them and trivializing of the abuse and inequality that they go through is equivalent to the inequality and abuse that black people have suffered since at least the end of the Civil War.  

Cursed am I for having studied so much antebellum black literature.  I can’t help but point out that black suffering came from a practice of people buying people, and now, because they can’t procreate naturally, homosexuals are buying people and calling them their children.  I know, I know – we’re not talking about whips and chains or being forced to harvest sugarcane.  But is slavery minus atrociously painful labor no longer slavery?

And I can't help but point out that PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING PEOPLE TODAY, EITHER, you disingenuous shitbag.  Wait, I take that back:  that's insulting to shitbags.

Wasn’t slavery the problem with slavery, not all the horrors that sometimes accompany slavery and sometimes do not?  The thing itself – buying people like livestock and owning them, no matter how long the contract runs, whether you are a house or field servant – is the evil, not the byproducts.

Notice how I am not using profanity or saying that gay people are going to the fiery place below.  I am simply pointing out that the gay lobby is not the first orchestrated movement to rationalize buying people.  This is enough to turn them apoplectic.  It’s enough to land an obscure little nobody at a Cal State top billing in their paranoid fantasies.

First, you did NOT get "top billing"; that was Scott Lively.

Second.  NOBODY IS BEING BOUGHT, SOLD, OR OWNED.  Unless you have evidence of this happening in surrogacy or adoptions, shut the fuck up.

Third:  You don't need to use profanity or say that they are going to hell to be an asshole.   

It is common in France and Belgium for people to use the term esclavage, or slavery, in describing surrogacy arrangements.

That does not actually make it slavery.  It isn't.  The surrogate is fully compensated, and retains their freedom.  The exact OPPOSITE is true for actual slaves.  This is insulting to both those involved in surrogacy and actual slaves.  I also doubt the claim, but do not know enough about the situation to state otherwise.

I translated many such documents into English.  I am also an established scholar in early black literature, so I know quite a deal about what esclavage implied to people on both sides of the Atlantic.  I teach Samuel Sewall’s “The Selling of Joseph” to college students on a regular basis – the first full abolitionist text in English. It includes this crucial set of lines:

It is likewise most lamentable to think, how in taking Negros out of Africa, and Selling of them here, That which GOD ha's joyned together men do boldly rend asunder; Men from their Country, Husbands from their Wives, Parents from their Children. How horrible is the Uncleanness, Mortality, if not Murder, that the Ships are guilty of that bring great Crouds of these miserable Men, and Women. 

 I'd say "every time this fucknut compares gay people to slave owners, take a drink". but I don't want to give what few readers I have alcohol poisoning.

I composed an article in French for some people in Europe, focusing on how Sewall’s overview of the violations of slavery spotlighted three separations as the main crime of the trade: men from their country, husbands from wives, parents from children.  Bingo.  That’s same-sex parenting.  The dirty ships are important, too, but it was not racism or hard labor that the abolitionists found abhorrent – it was the violation of natural bonds to family and ethnic origins.

No, it ISN'T same sex parenting.  You know what?  Fuck it. Drink.

If there is one charge that GLAAD and the HRC throw at me tirelessly, again and again, it’s the charge that I compared gay parents to slave owners.  Which I did.  In many languages.  In places where people get it.  Based on landmark texts that are sitting there for anybody to reference.

So my dear friends at HRC, there is no need to put me on notice.  I am guilty of the high crime of talking to people in other countries and sharing insights from world literature.  If you think I am going to stop or apologize, you haven’t researched me well enough.

And here's where you actually admit your demonizing.  

According to some historians of the so-called killing fields, in the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge hunted down people with eyeglasses and killed them en masse.  They did this ostensibly because they worried that people who were too intelligent might challenge the draconian policies of the government.  Fortunately, the Human Rights Campaign has no killing fields, so I and my contact lenses are safe for now.  God grant that the awakening of reason come earlier rather than later.

Actually, this is more akin to what your ilk do here and did in France.  The violence in France was against gay people, not straight.  And you encouraged it.

You are, without a doubt, an asshole.