Keyes: The Gay is ‘Suicide for Humanity’ and ‘Genocide’

Alan Keyes, more than almost anyone else on the far right fringe, is prone to flights of rhetorical fancy that reach astounding excesses. In his latest Worldnetdaily column he says “homosexual rights” are “suicide for humanity” and will cause “self-inflicted genocide.”

This simultaneous respect for the nature of the individual as a whole and the nature constituted by the whole of all such individuals is the hallmark of the natural law. Human sexual activity in the true sense (i.e., the activity of human procreation) is the concrete paradigm of this respect. Respect for the nature of human sexual activity, therefore, implies respect for the authority of the natural law. The special combination of human faculties allows human beings to act without such respect. But just as homosexual activity implies the extinction of humanity as such, so acting without respect for the natural law implies the extinction of humanity as a whole.

This reveals the supreme irony of the contemporary debate over law-enforced respect for so-called homosexual rights. In their clamor about global warming, poverty or an end to racism, those who advocate such respect pretend to be “humanitarians.” Yet they seek to discard our respect for the activity that implements the law (of the Creator) intended to preserve and perpetuate the nature of humanity as, in and of ourselves, we know it to be.

We do not forbid people to fly because they are born without wings. So the advocates of law-enforced respect for homosexuality may argue. But if and when they propose that, as a species, we should, like Icarus, fly into the sun, what then? If genocide is wrong for this or that race of human beings, how can self-inflicted genocide be right for humanity as a whole?

This is truly one of the most bizarre and inane arguments and we hear it from the Christian right all the time. They really do seem to think that gay people want everyone to be gay and that if we don’t legally punish them and discriminate against them, everyone will turn gay. Seriously, how does someone believe something that fucking stupid?

""Dennis Moore, Dennis MooreRiding cross the swardDennis Moore, Dennis MooreAnd his horse Concord.Steals from the ..."

Moore’s Nutty Lawyer
"Hey Mark - does that mean a hurricane's gonna hit Western Sydney now they voted ..."

Taylor: The Illuminati Sent the Hurricanes ..."
"Next week's headline:Hannity backs down on back down from back down from back down from ..."

Surprise! Hannity Backed Off His Backing ..."
"The irony is her and people like her put children and everyone else in danger ..."

Crokin: God Will Reward My Crackpottery

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • eric

    In their clamor about global warming, poverty or an end to racism, those who advocate such respect pretend to be “humanitarians.” Yet they seek to discard our respect for the activity that implements the law (of the Creator) intended to preserve and perpetuate the nature of humanity as, in and of ourselves, we know it to be.

    Wait, hold on…did he just call ‘ending racism’ and ‘ending poverty’ evil?

  • dingojack

    eric – ..and you’re surprised by this?!?

    Dingo

  • http://dontlinkmebro F [i’m not here, i’m gone]

    Natural Law and the act of human procreation makes gay people just as it makes every other sort of person you’d care to label. I don’t think you’ve actually read the Big Book O’ Natural Law. And if you prefer to believe in god, well then goddidit. Take your complaints up with the lord.

  • stever

    Of course he called ‘ending racism’ and ‘ending poverty’ evil. Jesus said that the poor would always be with us, and the OT if full of racism. Anyone who hasn’t given up his imaginary friend by puberty is likely to believe anything. Hell, if you use the Holy Babble as an axiom set, you can logically “prove” anything. From a contradiction, anything follows.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_the_Wolf podkayne

    I know the “self loather doth protest to much” cliche is, well, cliche, but whenever I encounter variations of the “if we let gay people be gay, then everyone will be gay” argument, I have a hard time believing that the claim can be made by anyone who is not secretly harbouring same sex attractions. The irony is they seem to think they’re just like the majority of heterosexuals, and really do think that for the rest of us it really is a struggle not to yield to temptation, because it’s so hard for them. It’s only my theory, but it’s the only vaguely coherent way I can logically explain the use of this argument.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    It’s like he spent an hour trying to make “Fags bad” sound smart.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Fundie psychology has always been iffy on set theory. They seem to have a hard time distinguishing between “Hitler is evil; Obama is evil” and “Obama is Hitler.” In this case, they’re getting messed up by the fact that there are some things that are very desirable but forbidden (e.g. beating sense into Alan Keyes with a 5-pound sledge to the head.) That implies to them that all forbidden things are very desirable and the only reason they don’t do them is that they ARE forbidden.

    So if they aren’t forcibly prevented from giving up the “fruitful and multiply” thing, they would.

    That’s the problem with being immersed in zero-freedom authoritarian world: they never acquired the ability to even consider the issues of making decision on any other than an “anything that isn’t mandatory is forbidden” basis. They talk about free will and freedom, but it’s like an agorphobic talking about the outdoors.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    podkayne “I know the “self loather doth protest to much” cliche is, well, cliche, but whenever I encounter variations of the “if we let gay people be gay, then everyone will be gay” argument, I have a hard time believing that the claim can be made by anyone who is not secretly harbouring same sex attractions”

    Homosexuality is like “Don’t think about purple elephants”. Just by mentioning it, in fact, I’ve made you a little bit gay.

  • eric

    @2 and @4; I am indeed surprised by it. Both that Keyes would believe it, and that he would say it if he did believe it. In fact it is so surprising that I’m considering the idea that all the big words and flowery sentences tripped him up. Its possible that he was, as Modus said, just trying to figure out a long-winded academic way of laying ‘gays bad’ and mixed up his sentences.

  • dugglebogey

    Latent homosexuality is much more insidious. He wants society as a whole to reject homosexuality, so that everyone is helping him keep his deeply rooted homosexual feelings hidden.

    If people start accepting it as normal and appropriate, he will not be able to keep those feelings inside….

  • A Masked Avenger

    Eric, #1:

    Wait, hold on…did he just call ‘ending racism’ and ‘ending poverty’ evil?

    No, he didn’t. (To the others piling on, it’s fun to put words in his mouth to make him look stupider than he already made himself, but I prefer not to do that.)

    His writing is turgid in that spot, but what he’s trying to say is something like, “Lib’ruls pretend to care about humanity, what with their crusading against global warming, for equal rights, and for relief of the poor–but, ironically, they are simultaneously leading the human race to extinction. Funny that they try to feed the poor, on one hand, but turn them gay so their species becomes extinct, on the other.”

  • dingojack

    Eric – it’s not like these ideas are something that came to Keyes in a flash of divine inspiration. The American branches of the RRWNJs have been saying this (openly and in dog-whistles) since 1954 (at the very least).

    Dingo

  • upprunitegundanna

    It reminds me of the Totalitarian Principle from The Once and Future King: “everything not forbidden is mandatory.”

  • noastronomer

    We do not forbid people to fly because they are born without wings.

    Lost me there. Do people without wings need legislation prohibiting them from flying? One would think that not having wings would be impediment enough. There are people born *with* wings?!?

    But if and when they propose that, as a species, we should, like Icarus, fly into the sun, what then?

    Lost me again. Is anyone proposing this? Are those the people with or without wings? Does NASA know aboutthis? If we can fly into the sun why aren’t we using this method of propulsion to colonize Mars?

    If genocide is wrong for this or that race of human beings,

    And again. If?!? Sounds Pythonesque.

    how can self-inflicted genocide be right for humanity as a whole?

    Still not sure I follow, is this one of those ‘rhetorical’ questions I hear about. Genocide would certainly fix the unemployment problem and our C02 output would probably be halved. At least.

    Confused in New Jersey.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    A Masked Avenger “His writing is turgid in that spot…”

    Also, in other spots. And the spots in between the spots. It’s more of a turgid ray, really.*

     

    * On a side note, back when I was a supervillian, I invented the Turgid Ray. Then Superman set out to stop me from using it, beating me quite severely in the process. My hip still aches before it rains. During it, too. Also, after.

  • abb3w

    @7, D. C. Sessions

    Fundie psychology has always been iffy on set theory. They seem to have a hard time distinguishing between “Hitler is evil; Obama is evil” and “Obama is Hitler.”

    More generally, it seems like it might involve some interesting anomalies in emphasis on Type-1 “reflexive” versus Type-2 “reflective” cognition. I’m not generating a lot of Google Scholar hits on whether anyone has researched the question, however.

  • steffp

    Abstaining from procreation, for whatever reason (religious celibacy, overall pessimism, poverty, or infertility due -among other reasons – to mismatching/identical gametes) does not constitute genocide. Not in a world with the insane amount of 7.2 billions inhabitants likely to double their number within the next 35 years. Homosexuality is a global human phenomenon over the past millenia (why else the 2500 years old mosaic rules against it?).

    Lastly, it can’t be said often enough: the link between sex and procreation is pretty weak.

    Unlike most animals, Humans have no rutting season. They feel sexual attraction all the time, and consequently have sex all the time. Even by Lutheran standards – twice a week – this amounts to thousands of co-habitations over a lifetime. This results in decades of emotional alignment, pair-bonding, recreation, and a meager 2 children per couple. Compare that to the 100% procreation rate of animals with rutting seasons.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Beat enough reflexive responses into someone, and their cognitive abilities will generally follow the path of least resistance: rationalizing the reflexive responses.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    steffp “Abstaining from procreation, for whatever reason (religious celibacy, overall pessimism, poverty, or infertility due -among other reasons – to mismatching/identical gametes) does not constitute genocide. Not in a world with the insane amount of 7.2 billions inhabitants likely to double their number within the next 35 years.”

    Not if gay marriage turns everyone gay!

     

    Lastly, it can’t be said often enough: the link between sex and procreation is pretty weak.”

    Seem pretty strong to me. I drew a Venn diagram and “procreation” was almost entirely inside “sex”.

     

    “Unlike most animals, Humans have no rutting season.”

    Even in Canada?

     

    “They feel sexual attraction all the time, and consequently have sex all the time.”

    It’s a little creepy the way you stared at me when you said that.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Anyone who thinks that humans don’t have a rutting season has never spent much time in Wyoming.

  • http://Reallyawakeguy.blogspot.com somnus

    I’ve talked about this sort of argument in my own blog. It seems like such an odd one to make, since the guy’s audience object to homosexuality on religious rather than naturalistic grounds, and opponents are likely to understand enough about populations to reject it as laughable. I think its real purpose is to slap a veneer of real-world applicability on the bigotry so that the people who object to homosexuality on religious grounds can convince themselves that the rest of us *ought* to agree with them.

  • Randomfactor

    Someone should ask his daughter for her take on this idiot’s spiel.

  • http://tonythompsonjr%40facebook.com Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    dugglebogy:

    Latent homosexuality is much more insidious. He wants society as a whole to reject homosexuality, so that everyone is helping him keep his deeply rooted homosexual feelings hidden.

    If people start accepting it as normal and appropriate, he will not be able to keep those feelings inside….

    Or Keyes could be a heterosexual man-as he’s presented himself (and I’ve seen no evidence to indicate he’s closeted and/or lying)-who is a bigot.

    Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it’s far more likely that he’s simply a bigoted asshole? Why does he have to be secretly gay? You should fucking ask yourself why it’s so important to you that homophobes be gay. Is it that unbelievable that a heterosexual man could be a bigot?

    Fuck you and your low opinions of gay people, asswipe.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop! “Fuck you and your low opinions of gay people, asswipe.”

    Look, my opinion of them would be higher if they’d stop shitting all over statues all the time. It’s disgusting and, frankly, puts them beneath contempt. Or I could be thinking of pigeons.

  • steve84

    The lesbian daughter he disowned must be glad she got away by now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    Back in the 90s, when Keyes was running for President, an author at The New Republic announced “the Alan Keyes Phenomenon”; i.e. next to Alan Keyes, everyone looks presidential.

  • http://mostlyrational.net tacitus

    I still wonder who at MSNBC back in 2002 thought it was a good idea to give Alan Keyes his own show and call it “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense.”

    It lasted all of six months.

    Oh, and something tells me he probably doesn’t visit his IMDB page very often, given what’s in his “Known For” section…

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “Anyone who thinks that humans don’t have a rutting season has never spent much time in Wyoming.”

    Well, I tend toward the other opinion. But, I can see how in Wyoming, when the ewes are in estrus it might SEEM like humans have a rutting season.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Ewes? Well, that too. But I was thinking of Rams. And, to be fair, Fords and Chevys.

    Rutting season is in between “mud” and “construction.”

  • lorn

    Yea … If it wasn’t for Keyes heroic stance athwart the gay agenda we would all go gay and humanities tenuous grip on this dangerously underpopulated planet would slip away and the last hope of humanity would be lost.

    ‘LOL

  • John Pieret

    how does someone believe something that fucking stupid?

    Practice makes perfect.

  • Nick Gotts

    Not in a world with the insane amount of 7.2 billions inhabitants likely to double their number within the next 35 years.- steffp@17

    Er, no. While global population is still increasing, the rate at which it is doing so has roughly halved over the past half-century, and almost all projections put the global population in 2050 at between 8 and 10.5 billion.

    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!@24,

    I think people like dugglebogey are actually trying to persuade themselves they are not homophobes. They know they are not gay, so if they can persuade themselves and others that all homophobes are closeted gays, it follows that they can’t be homophobes or suspected of homophobia! I just can’t see any other explanation for the obsessive way dugglebogey in particular brings this up every time a particularly egregious piece of homophobic filth or nonsense is discussed :-p

  • dingojack

    Nick Gotts – “I think people like dugglebogey are actually trying to persuade themselves they are not homophobes. They know they are not gay, so if they can persuade themselves and others that all homophobes are closeted gays, it follows that they can’t be homophobes or suspected of homophobia!”

    Or, on the other hand, it could be the monotonous frequency that raging homophobes are unmasked as conspicuous hypocrites when it comes to homosexual sex*?

    Dingo

    ——–

    * or it could be their idée fixe that being homosexual is somehow totally totally irresistible, or the lip-licking, pant-wetting excitement they seem to experience when talking about homosexuality (particularly male homosexuality), or the histrionically sensuous language they use to describe homosexuality or homosexual activities, or perhaps it’s their almost pathological interest in (vicariously) experiencing the extreme end of gay sexuality (well beyond healthy curiosity, into the zone of prurience)?

    Nah, that’s mere arm-chair psychology, completely different from psychoanalysing other people’s ‘latent homophobia’ whilst conveniently decrying cod-psychoanalysis as merely a process to fix negative labels. But I sure when you do it, it’s totally different, amiright? . @@

  • eric

    Dingo:

    Or, on the other hand, it could be the monotonous frequency that raging homophobes are unmasked as conspicuous hypocrites when it comes to homosexual sex*?

    Because the news media has absolutely no bias in what it reports, right? It couldn’t possibly report sensationalist stories of crimes, hypocrisies etc… waaaay out of proportion to the amount they happen, could it? These honest and upright defenders of the free press never ever make mountains out of molehills, amiright or amiright? [/snark]

    I expect the percent of publicly bigoted conservatives who are closeted gays is probably about the same (or slightly less) than the percent of non-homophobes who are gay; so maybe around 1-2%. Their unmasking just gets reported with the same fervor as a celebrity sex scandal (which, um, it usually is)

  • dingojack

    I think a lawyer might say: ‘Goes to establish a pattern of prior bad behaviour’.

    Dingo

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    “I expect the percent of publicly bigoted conservatives who are closeted gays is probably about the same (or slightly less) than the percent of non-homophobes who are gay; so maybe around 1-2%. Their unmasking just gets reported with the same fervor as a celebrity sex scandal (which, um, it usually is)”

    Why do you expect that?

    This:

    “Researchers said their results defied stereotypes that portray the LGBT community as heavily grouped in urban centers. With the exception of the District of Columbia, LGBT populations range 3.4 percentage.”

    is from here (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/15/nation/la-na-nn-gay-population-numbers-20130215).

    I would expect the opposite actually, given that the number of politicians who tout their decency, honesty, impartiality, incorruptibility and fairness is pretty much the inverse of those who actually exhibit those qualities.

    I have no idea, nor do I care, whether Keyes is gay and lying about it. Given his track record on just about everything it’s at least plausible that his heterosexuality is a long standing sham*.

    * FWIW, I’m sure that some of the ReiKKKwingers think that his daughter being gay is PROOF that he’s teh GAY, ‘cuz DNA!

  • Nick Gotts

    Stone me, dingojack@33, you’re really stupid sometimes. Didn’t the “:-p” at the end give you a clue that I was deliberately employing the same bullshit cod-psychoanalysis to draw attention to how fuckwitted it is?

    Or, on the other hand, it could be the monotonous frequency that raging homophobes are unmasked as conspicuous hypocrites when it comes to homosexual sex

    What percentage of raging homophobes have been so unmasked? You will undoubtedly have done a comprehensive statistical analysis, so why deprive the rest of us of your deep knowledge in this area?

    Democommie@36,

    Why did you just cite an article that has absolutely zilch to do with the point you’re contesting? It doesn’t even mention homophobia. (I should say I’ve no idea whether eric is right in his estimate. But it does anger and depress me that a number of commenters persist with this homophobic, victim-blaming crap at every opportunity.)

  • Nick Gotts

    democommie@36,

    Ah, apologies, maybe you were just citing the article with regard to the proportion of the population who are gay. But in this context, is the difference between 1-2% and 3.4% of any real importance?

  • freehand

    stever” Of course he called ‘ending racism’ and ‘ending poverty’ evil. Jesus said that the poor would always be with us, and the OT if full of racism. Anyone who hasn’t given up his imaginary friend by puberty is likely to believe anything. Hell, if you use the Holy Babble as an axiom set, you can logically “prove” anything. From a contradiction, anything follows.

    .

    As a US teen in a SBC youth group, I was called out (in 1967) for wearing a peace sign. I was told “If you think you can end this war, you think that we can end all wars. The bible says there will be wars until the end of time, so you’re going against the bible!”

    .

    I was dumbfounded, which was my usual state in those days.

  • freehand

    podkayne: I know the “self loather doth protest to much” cliche is, well, cliche, but whenever I encounter variations of the “if we let gay people be gay, then everyone will be gay” argument, I have a hard time believing that the claim can be made by anyone who is not secretly harbouring same sex attractions. The irony is they seem to think they’re just like the majority of heterosexuals, and really do think that for the rest of us it really is a struggle not to yield to temptation, because it’s so hard for them. It’s only my theory, but it’s the only vaguely coherent way I can logically explain the use of this argument.

    .

    Not necessary for their attitude. They think that people can change their beliefs by an act of will. I have had many argue over the years that they *chose to believe. Not that they examined the evidence, and found that they were believers. Not that they believed , and then chose Jesus as their savior etc. But rather they think they decide what to believe as I might decide which plant to buy for the garden. I can choose which one I buy, but I can’t choose which ones I like. I asked a True Believer what his favorite ice cream was, and he replied “Chocolate”. I asked if he could decide to like another flavor more, and he said “Yes, of course”.

    .

    According to Southern Baptist doctrine, we are depraved by nature, so if we “relax” we will exhibit all the most depraved desires and behaviors one can imagine (and they have had lots of practice imagining them). If one has not surrendered to the Holy Spirit, one will be as disgusting as possible. They would probably make the same arguments as you characterize above for pedophilia, beastiality, or rape. Many evangelicals are much better people than they think they are, so naturally they think the worst of non-believers.

  • eric

    Why do you expect that?

    After 14 years of gay marriage, the gay marriage rate in Holland has settled down to be about 2% of the total marriage rate. That’s an open, gay-friendly society so we would not expect the sampling bias and self-identification issues there that we might expect in other countries. Unless one assumes that gays in a gay-friendly society still won’t marry as much as straights do (an assumption I’m not willing to make), this number is as good a proxy as any other.

    Having said that, I’m perfectly fine with an estimate of 3-4% too; my main point was not the specific number, my main point was that there is no reason to expect conservatives to contain an extroadinarily high percentage of gays. The notion that all/most homophobes are secretly gay implies this extroadinarily higher per captia number, so it is likely a wrong notion. 19 out of every 20 homophobes are very likely straight, the same way 19 out of every 20 liberals are very likely straight…because roughly speaking, 19 out of every 20 people are straight.

  • joubert

    Christ. I’ve rarely seen an extravagant rhetorical style like this used in the service of such hateful stupidity; usually the prose of bigots is at best serviceable, lapsing into a strange, King Jamesian pseudo-elloquence when it inevitably comes time to whip out the ol’ Bible to support their notarguments. I’m reminded of Edward Dahlberg, fine writer, absolutely disastrous human being (quoth Gilbert Sorrentino: “You can find no meaning in Dahlberg, none that you can’t get from a thousand lesser writers. Mailer is a titanic thinker next to him; your mailman or boss has more enlightened or informed ideas.”), who, in the introduction to a 1972 omnibus of two of his writings, The Sorrows of Priapus and the Carnal Myth, opined, in the most elloquent, malifluous prose, without a trace of irony, humour, or self-awareness, that women wearing short skirts, men “atired in noisome drawers”, and the advertisement of Women’s undergarments on television, “our national box of

    shame”, surely portents the end of days for America.

  • http://polrant@blogspot.com democommie

    @37&38:

    Yes, I cited it because of what eric said.

    “After 14 years of gay marriage, the gay marriage rate in Holland has settled down to be about 2% of the total marriage rate. ”

    I don’t know what it’s like in Holland or many other places. I know for an absolute fact that being gay in the U.S. is still tremendously problematic for a lot of gay people. Whether it’s because they’re discriminated against in the workplace, stigmatized socially, hated by their own families or threatened by bullies there are many reasons for gay people to NOT act gay.

    Make of it what you will.