“I’m not sure why, but after following your blog and others for many weeks, the latest attack from Alan Keyes just sent me over the edge. I just feel compelled to respond to the fundamental foolishness of this so-called “argument”. If his concern is the inevitability of accidental incest happening to children raised by gay parents because “[i]f you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of,” then why is it Keyes is not railing against the evils of adoption (which I’m sure the Pro-Life Republican constituency would just love)? Why is he not calling for a ban on all artificial insemination (especially from anonymous donors)? Does anyone believe for a second that gay marriage (which barely exists anywhere in the world, and that for only months now) is a primary driver behind these practices, which clearly are how this supposed risk would be introduced?”
Great point. Actually, I think adoption does logically violate the worldview of Keyes. If civil marriage is to be kept exclusively heterosexual because only a hetero couple can have biological kids, then why is civil marriage still allowed for those who adopt kids? Or those who are infertile? Or those who have no intent to have children? The anti-gay right have never answered these obvious questions. If your argument is based on biological nature, then adoption violates the most natural instinct of all: to protect your own genes. If the anti-gay right were motivated by reason, this would occur to them. But they’re not; and so it hasn’t.
The Dish 