A US columnist has made unfounded claims that equal rights are leading the US towards legalising incest, paedophilia and rape.

Alan Keyes wrote for WorldNetDaily if equal rights were given to “elitist promoters” of gay rights, then incest and paedophilia should be considered the same, that tolerating gay people is like being forced to cook and serve pork, despite a religious aversion to it, and that rape will be legalised if equal rights are given.

He writes: “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.

“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.

He then goes on to link homosexuality with incest and paedophilia: “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.

He also claims that being gay is a choice, and that equal rights are a threat to freedom of religious practices, comparing tolerating gay people with someone averse to eating pork being forced to cook and serve it on demand.

“Absent any God-endowed natural imperative to engage in homosexual relations, doing so is a matter of choice involving a preference for one form of sensual gratification over another. It’s absurd to suggest that government should by law, force others to approve of and accommodate such preferences, especially when doing so requires trampling on proven claims of unalienable right, like the right freely to exercise (put into practice) one’s religion. We may justly penalize the neglect of right that permits some to feast while others are denied the opportunity to glean bare subsistence from their leftovers.

“But it makes no sense to say that because some people want to eat pork others are forbidden to disapprove of doing so, and that the latter are required to prepare and serve it whenever pork eaters demand that they do so.

The US conservative activist concludes that rape laws might be repealed if equal rights are given: “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.”

His view goes against those of the leader of a US anti-gay group, and a pastor invited to talk on his program, who said it is okay to eat pork and shellfish, but not to have gay sex, despite both being classed as sinful in the Old Testament, because you can refrigerate the former. 

Also writing for WND recently was Erik Rush, who said that bowing to pressure from a “militant homosexual lobby” on LGBT rights was like “capitulating to a developmentally disabled child who wants to play with matches”.

Barry Farber wrote that the Boy Scouts of America lifting its ban on gay members, volunteers and staff would make it a “beehive of erotic exploration”, and compared efforts to urge the Boy Scouts to drop its anti-gay policy to the Nazi German invasion of Norway.