Republican asshole Alan Keyes raises fear of incest as argument against gay couples raising kids.

Mac over at pesky’apostrophe points us to this news item at the Chicago Sun-Times about Alan Keye’s most recent homophobic tirade:

U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told a rally Saturday that incest was “inevitable” for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents.

“If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable,” Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages.

“Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of.”

The logic, or rather the lack of it, being applied here simply boggles the brain. As Mac points out: Isn’t this already a possibility for children who are adopted? Ditto for kids that are the result of sperm or egg donations? Where was Keyes to warn us of the dangers of accidental incest in those situations? How much of a dumbass does Keyes need to be to not see the flaw in his reasoning? If he truly believes that Bible he’s always thumping is 100% correct then doesn’t that pretty much mean that all of humanity got its start through a little incest? Who the hell else did Adam and Eve’s kids have sex with if not each other? For that matter, the Bible has several accounts of incest with no negative repercussions in it so why is Alan Keyes so worried about it? There’s certainly plenty of scientific reasons not to engage in incest, but very few Biblical reasons.

If you folks in Illinois have any decency in you at all you’ll make sure that Alan Keyes loses his bid for the open Senate seat in your state by a landslide. If not because he’s a religious nutcase then at least because he’s dumb as a rock.

18 thoughts on “Republican asshole Alan Keyes raises fear of incest as argument against gay couples raising kids.

  1. Well duh, they’re gays or lesbians, right? So just give them kids of the opposite sex.

    Problem solved.

    (And you’re more than welcome, Mr. Keyes, glad to be of service.)

  2. I actually love listening to Alan Keyes speak.  He IS extremely intelligent.  When his political agenda doesn’t interfere with his reasoning skills, he can be quite insightful.  That said, i’ll be happy to see him lose to Obama.

    Question:  are straight individuals limited to only children of the same sex as they when adopting ?
    Answer:  No, of course not, Silly.  And if the agency saw need to place such a limit on a individual, then that individual would be barred from adopting at that agency.

    Why should homosexuals be restricted in the types of humans they can adopt ?

    Case in point:  Straight men and women teach children all the time.  You don’t see parents yanking their male kids out of Ms.Molly’s social studies class, nor do you see parents asking that Suzy not have any male teachers.  Some people think that homosexuals are all about sex.  This is merely an instance where we notice the differences in others, rather than the similarities we all share, despite our different flavours.

    Merely because someone is homosexual does not mean their sex drive is greater or less controllable than their breeding colleagues.  It just means their tastes are different.  Never mind that, percentage wise, heterosexuals are far more likely to be pedophiles than homosexuals.

    IMO, homosexuals are G-d’s gift to corrupt nations in times of strife and chaos.  Just remember, people, some of history’s best dictators and rulers were fags.  That’s no coincidence.

  3. If you folks in Illinois have any decency in you at all you’ll make sure that Alan Keyes loses his bid for the open Senate seat in your state by a landslide.

    What, and miss out on all this free entertainment?  You have to pay for comedy central; it doesn’t come with basic cable.

    Oh, right, the “real-world consequences of having a total nutball in office” thing.  Damn.

  4. Keyes certainly has the advantage of speaking his mind.  He actually has some interesting and provocative ideas at times, too.

    Unfortunately, he’s also a nut case when it comes to some subjects (and homosexuality is definitely one of them).  It seems highly unlikely (thank heavens) he’ll win the Illinois seat he was carpetbagged in for.

  5. Umm . . . based on the comments, it seems like some folks are missing the complete absurdity of Keyes’s statement.  He’s not worried that gays will have incestual relationships with their own children.  (Well, he probably worries about that too.)  No, what he’s saying here is that if we allow gays to marry, children will not know who their parents really are.  So, as these kids (adopted, products of surrogacy, etc.) go out into the world, they will inevitably end up having sex with someone who was also brought up by a gay couple with the same parent (e.g., sperm donor, surrogate mother, etc.)  Hence, homosexuality leads to incest.

    Everyone here is sure glad he never put his home back in Maryland on the market.  He’ll need a place to stay on November 3.

  6. Another point to note on this person is that he criticised Hillary Clinton for running in New York claiming she had no roots there. However, this guy unlike the Clintons who already had purchase a house in NY a year before is running in Illinois where he does not even has a house as he comes from NY. Double Standards?

    Another point would be how he called Dick Cheney’s daughter a sinner and a “selfish hedonist” because she is a lesbian.

    Of course, the reason why he is running in Illinois is an attempt to split the black vote for Obama.

  7. Yep, that was kind of the point Mac was making. This is technically already a possibility for adopted kids.

  8. I have a former Republican boyfriend who could be totally classified as a party operative, and he has an interesting view on why Keyes is running.

    First, as some noted, he’s a transplant to the state—and worse, after he lambasted MsClinton for doing likewise in NYState.  So, it’s a little curious, and honestly contrary to Keyes’ manner, that he would run a foriegn state.

    This ex-bf is of the oppinion that the Republican higher-up’s requested this of Keyes with an eye to hamper his political career.  In short:  they set the black man up for failure.

    One more example of how american politicos eat their own.

  9. One more example of how american politicos eat their own.

    Just to state the obvious, this isn’t limited to the US. The most hated among their peers are probably honest, “square shooter” politicians – because it sets a bad precedent.

  10. Oh dear, Rob, I think you missed my sarcasm.
    It seemed like a ridiculous and simplistic (not to mention homophobic) complaint, so I gave a ridiculous and simplistic (while mocking the homophobia) solution.

    I suppose I should have seen that the mockery may have fell flat since I haven’t posted here before and no on knows me. But I thought I had a fair sense of the site and thought I’d be a good fit.
    Anyway, that (your comments to mine) was exactly what I meant (within the context of mockery): “if you’re worried about parents molesting their kids, then, well, gays are your perfect candidates for adoption since they wouldn’t even be interested in 50% of the kids out there. With heterosexuals, no one is safe.” That’s all of course assuming evey adoptive parent to be a potential molestor, which I’m not suggesting, although if someone wants to attack the gays and lesbians, then I’m all for generalizing that to the rest of society. (Heck, why restrict ourselves to adoptive kids? Lets take all children and redistribute them to gay couples of the opposite sex! wait. I’m ranting. back to track…)

    I would never actually advocate restricting gay men to only adopting daughters or lesbians to sons. Again, sorry for the confusion. I thought it was a funny joke on the presumptuous and judgemental morons out there.

    Anyway, I guess I could still be blowing smoke. Who am I? I write about this kind of thing once in a while, not adoption specifically, but more of the none-of-anybody’s-goddamned-business kind of thing. One sample here: -hope that clears things up.

  11. Don’t feel too bad, Amy. Sarcasm and other similar intonations can be difficult to do in a purely textual medium. I screw it up all the time myself. grin

  12. Amy, I must admit your sarcasm of 10/19 went right by me too but now that you’ve explained it 1) Funny!, 2) boy, am I a dope for missing that one, and 3) that’s a quite insightful take on the assumption that anti-gays make that gay=pedophile.

    But while Rob commented, I didn’t because it just went right over my head.

    Keep writing… I may get the next one.  raspberry

  13. Amy typed…

    Oh dear, Rob, I think you missed my sarcasm.

    Oops, me bad.  I hope this appology reaches you before the gay-mafia hitsquad does. I’ve been trying to call them off all morning, but it’s near impossible to reach anyone in the syndicate before 10am tea.

    (Nice blog, btw, and excellent writing—Although i do feel obliged to FedEx you one of my many spare color-wheels, which i often give to my new str8 friends.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.