Alan Keyes has always had a bizarre conception of the concept of natural rights, an idea espoused strongly but enforced incompletely and hypocritically by the founding fathers. He seizes on Jefferson’s reference to “Nature’s God” to claim that rights are limited by whatever the Biblical God allegedly says. He repeats this in his latest Worldnutdaily column:
Today the elitist faction promoters of so-called “homosexual rights” use and abuse the language of rights even though they reject the logic that, in light of America’s political heritage, invests that language with moral force. By that logic every claim of unalienable right (i.e., a right that trumps the provisions of merely human law) can be tested with a simple question: What is the provision of the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” that obliges and authorizes the action or activity the claim involves?
And since he equates “Nature’s God” (in the original, Jefferson capitalized both words) with the Biblical God, which Jefferson quite emphatically did not do, the Bible forms the boundaries of all individual rights. If the Biblical God doesn’t like it, you don’t have a right to do it. Welcome to theocracy.
The pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, does not in and of itself correspond to such an imperative (even though, thanks to the goodwill of the Creator, most bodily activities required for our survival, are in some degree pleasurable.) Loving human relations are of course an imperative of our nature. But loving human relations need not involve the particular physical pleasures connected with what we call “sexual relations.” If by natural necessity they must, then the prejudicial prohibitions against incest or pedophilia would be as much a violation of right as those that target homosexual relations…
Moreover, unless we mean to repeal the laws against rape, no one can by law be forced to respect or cater to the sexual appetites of others. Even temple prostitutes could discriminate against those who desecrated the idols they served. Shall we then submit to laws that require that we violate our obligation to the Author of our nature, the very authority from which our whole people derives its right of self-government, and from which our Constitution and laws derive their claim to our allegiance and respect?
*boggle* How, exactly, does equality for gay people force anyone else to “respect or cater to the sexual appetites of others”? And can he really not identify the obvious distinction between consensual sexual relations between adults and pedophilia? Seriously?