How is gays getting married and taking care of children wakening the country?

Shouldn't it strengthen the country for orphans to have a home?





It's not like they're going to turn gay. After all it's obviously straight parent's that raise gay children nowadays, why couldn't gay parent's raise straight children?How is gays getting married and taking care of children wakening the country?
my dads youngest brother is gay and has two children they are perfectly normal growing up in a two dad household they feel no different from a one dad and one mom house their mother abandon them when the were younger so their second dad is more like a mom to them then their real mother ever was so yes gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to have children i mean their are children out there that needs a home to go to me and my girlfriend are going to adoptHow is gays getting married and taking care of children wakening the country?
In the socio-biological sense, it is generally agreed that children do best when they have one parent of each gender. If you're raised by two people of the same gender, you either grow up without a mother, or without a father. That's something that is best avoided if possible.





As for gays getting married, they've lived together and raised children, though not produced children by the relationship, for centuries. But never, in the history of the English language, has that been commonly called ';married.'; Regardless of what you consider someone's legal rights to be, any competent linguist will tell you that languages evolve on their own by common usage, and can't be modified by government, or by law, or by rights.





The people who tried to get constitutional amendments passed that would ';define 'marriage' as a union between one man and one woman'; didn't realize this either, and they still don't. Government can't ';define'; any word, and if government says a word means anything other than what its common usage is, it puts itself at odds with the people it governs by speaking a different language. Many states now basically deny there's such a thing as polygamy, having enshrined the ';one man, one woman'; thing in their constitutions as a ';definition.';





The word ';marriage'; is centuries old and has always referred, in by far its most common usage, to a relationship, hopefully procreative, between one man and at least one woman. That's not a commentary on whether anything else is right or wrong, it's simply what the word means when the majority of English speakers use it. Whatever you think someone's legal rights should be, language will not change as well.





That ';one man, one woman'; thing passed in Oregon, of all places, with an astonishing 70 percent vote. Oregon is not a state of bible-thumping born-agains out to save the family. It was a matter of people being nervous over attempts to mutate the language through legal means, and most people's gut feeling that it was foolish and that what they were voting into the constitution was closer to the real meaning than was the uncommon usage it was preventing law from recognizing. Those ';civil union'; bills have done much better in most states, and that should tell anyone that it's about the language.





%26lt;culture%26gt; Marriage as a cultural thing has generally been based on procreation as well. This is usually the legal basis for things like incest being illegal, because it's inbreeding. The nature and traditions have mostly been built around what it takes to breed. A sterile man and a woman can be considered married because the only differences are that they can't breed, but are otherwise like the normal breeding arrangement. Linguistic usage and cultural tradition has generally excluded everything else from both the word and the concept, and language and culture evolve. They don't undergo revolutions.





Notice how there is no argument based on religion or morality in there. Mostly just linguistics and science.
If gays get married, every type of relationship will have to have the same rights. Same sex is a one generational self extinction and is not the normal relationship in any form of life, to continue life.





Why would any decent person want to expose children to what is not normal?
It doesn't weaken the country. That's just something that prejudiced people say. No matter what they use to justify it - religion, politics, whatever - it's all just homophobia. Just because a family may be the stereotyped ideal of a hetero nuclear family, doesn't mean it's going to work.





The truth is that love is love, in whatever form it happens. And as long as a child is cared for and loved then it doesn't matter if its parents are gay, straight, green or purple with pink stripes.
It's cool if you want to get married and all. But don't bring a child in it for fear of his physiological development.





It's fine for him to know it's ';ok to be gay'; but not for him to know ';you must be gay because your daddy and daddy are gay';.





Edit* I also think the child will have a tougher childhood if they are ridiculed about their gay parents. Therefore subjecting a child to this is not a good idea.
People are always afraid of anything they aren't used to because they're insecure and anything unusual represents a threat to them and rather than just admit their xenophobia they try to irrationally rationalize their bigotry. To protect the children is the first BS excuse for anything.
how can you have children if you are gays???


I mean, who's getting pregnantt??


:D:D
That is so right
i honestly agree with you 100% percent