Alan Keyes, amiably replied: "I don't know. I think he is entitled to his personal convictions, but I think that the party's position is the correct one. We have to stand in defense of the traditional marriage institution in order to preserve its basis in procreation and make sure that we retain an understanding of family life that is rooted in the tradition of procreation, of childbearing and childrearing. That is the essence of family life."
Let's talk about this for a second. Why is protecting the essence of family life important in our country?
I pinch someone in the arm. He screams in pain. Now, let us discuss whether or not pinching someone in the arm causes pain or not. Classic leftist dialectics: it's all relative; it all depends. Whether you're aware or not is irrelevant, but that's what you're trying to do with your challenge. Certain things are not to be disputed, challenged or debated - they're absolutes.
Outlawcam replies:
Let's talk about this for a second. Why is protecting the essence of family life important in our country?
Keyes: "-- Homosexuals are essentially incapable of procreation. They cannot mate. They are not made to do so.
Therefore the idea of marriage for two such individuals is an absurdity."
" -- The definition and understanding of marriage is 'the two become one flesh.' In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals."
" --- If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism. This is unacceptable."
_____________________________________
This 'hedonism' position may be 'unacceptable' to Keyes, and to other members of the Republican Party, but it is certainly not well thought out on a Constitutional basis. The only Constitutional basis for government regulation of marriage is in the enforcing of civil law, -- in the protection of individual rights.
The morality of who is contracted in marriage to whom is simply none of the States business.
-- Unless the rights of one or more of the parties involved -- [& in particular, - children] are being violated, governments have no legal basis to interfere in civil contracts of marriage.
This issue is a tempest in a teapot simply because government has given favorable tax & insurance benefits to 'traditional' married couples.
The solution is equally simple. End the favoritism.
Find other ways to promote family values.