Readers of my blog (English Manif) may recall that Jeremy Hooper and several other people over at GLAAD/HRC (people go back and forth between these two organizations so they are not easy to distinguish) have long kept me on blacklists because, in their estimation, I “compared gay parents to slave owners” and/or “equated gay marriage to slavery.”
As is usually the case with Jeremy Hooper and his darling allies in the Gay Crusades, they used the quote unfairly. I argued multiple times that the claims by gay marriage advocates about their “right to have a child,” in combination with their enthusiastic championing of gestational surrogacy, mirrored the same pattern that predated the rise of African slavery in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; I also stated that the problem would start out seemingly innocuous and quickly become a horrible slave trade. See American Thinker, 27 January 2013, where I state that we are witnessing “the dawn of a new slave trade.” In my many articles explaining this legal danger, I explained that the reasoning behind the African slave trade was rather similar to what we are seeing now: the slave owners were people who felt aggrieved in their own European countries, they wanted to “build an estate” the way we hear of people “building families” today, and people were convinced that the slaves were happy. In fact, back then, all people had to do was ask slaves if they loved their masters, and the answer was almost always yes. Because if the answer was no, the slave would be sold to someone worse.
Note that nowhere have I said that I approve of straight people buying human beings. I have repeatedly stated that I deplore treatment of humans like livestock or chattel whether people doing it are gay or otherwise.
I do not have to repeat the litany of denunciations I’ve endured from Jeremy Hooper and his blogging army about how I’m the wicked evil person who compared gay dads wanting to have a kid with slave owners.
Well, lookey here, at what ran on a non-partisan bioethics site, authored by Chris White:
More and more people are now using the terminology that was common in France — surrogacy is a “modern means of slavery.” As proof, Chris White points out that a recent case involved a Japanese businessman who purchased nine babies by surrogacy with the hope that they would take over his business. He considers his business family. Much like slavery in the US!
If anyone has any doubts that surrogacy has created a market for the buying and selling of children, a new case in Thailand should put any skepticism to rest. The Brisbane Times is reporting that the Bangkok police have raided a surrogacy business where nine, six-month-old babies born via surrogacy were found. While the story is still fresh, it appears these children were all going to be turned over to a Japanese businessman who had arranged for their conception in hopes that one day these children would take over his business. Whether they bear any biological connection to him remains unclear.
Okay, I won’t hold my breath waiting for GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign to apologize to me for condemning me for stating what other people have stated without the massive backlash. They are corrupt organizations that lack any integrity so why expect more from them?
I do expect more from homosexuals, though, because I am part of the queer community. I spoke out against gays buying children because I do not want queers to be one of the prime drivers of a slave market. For expecting the best from a community that I consider human and capable of goodness, I got punished. That’s sad.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.