The following is a quote from a Presidential-election debate between Alan Keys and Barack Obama:
"Mr. Keys, on the Channel Seven debate last Thursday night, you said and I'm quoting you: `Where procreation is IN PRINCIPLE impossible, marriage is irrelevant and not needed.` What about marriage between people who are well beyond child bearing age? irrelevant? not needed?"
"No, no its simply just a misunderstanding. The word `in principle' means -relating to the definition of - not relating to particular circumstances. So if an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple; it doesn't change what the apple is in principle. Human beings reason by concepts and definitions, we also make laws by means of definitions. And if you don't know how to operate with respect to those definitions, you can't make the law. An individual who is impotent or another who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because between a man and a woman-in principle- procreation is always possible, and it is that possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place, as a matter of law and government.
But when it is impossible, as between two males or two females, you're talking about something that's not just incidentally impossible, its impossible in principle. And that means that if you say that that's a marriage, you are saying that marriage can be understood IN PRINCIPLE apart from procreation - you have changed its definition in such a way as in fact to destroy the necessity of the institution. Since the only reason it has existed in human societies and civilizations-was to regulate from a social point of view-the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation, so when you start playing games in this way, you are actually acting as if the institution has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim.
James Peabody says:
All humans have the right to the experience of the fullness of their humanity; the human experience which includes a mother and a father.
Two men do not replace a mother
Two women do not replace a father
It is a violation of the natural rights of humanity to purposefully attempt having children outside this relationship, it is a denial of a child's humanity and its right to the full experience and expression of it - we are a species comprised of male and female. Adopting children is not the same as picking up a pet at the Animal Shelter, adoption is FIRST for the health and protection of the child both emotionally and psychologically, by providing it with the nearest approximation of a good mother and father available.
A child is not a consenting adult and therefore adoption can never be justified under the argument of "consenting adults" living together, because a child is not an adult and it is still human and has a right to experience a relationship with its mother and father. Adoption can only be understood as an imperfect solution to the tragedy that has separated a child from its biologic parents, and the purpose of adoption should always be to facsimilate the tragically missing biologic mother or father or both as the case may be.