Robert Oscar Lopez is the latest anti-gay activist to attack at the Human Rights Campaign for featuring him in a report on “the export of hate,” writing in the American Thinker today that HRC’s inclusion of him in its report “reveals” that the LGBT movement is “after your kids, plain and simple.”

“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,” he writes.

“They want to have children to love them and call them Mom and Dad,” he writes, but “[j]ust because you control a human being doesn’t mean that’s your child.”

He then goes on to compare same-sex parenting to slavery, and LGBT rights activist to the Khmer Rouge.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

…

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?

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?

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.

…

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.