Really, what does it matter if a family is headed by a man & a woman, a man & a man, or a woman & a woman? Am I wrong in feeling the important factors are that children are raised to be happy, healthy, positive contributors to society, the family is happy, nobody is hurt, & nobody has their rights infringed upon?
Those who oppose such "unnatural" couplings declare that since the beginning of monogamous relationships marriage has been defined as one man & one woman. They are correct. So what? The word punk originally was used to refer to the adolescent partner in an erotic paederastic relationship. Its use today is not real likely to conjur up images of homoerotic boy-love. The definition of punk has been updated to better suit our modern, more ethically-advanced society. Language evolves along with society. Those using the "sacrosanct marriage definition" argument are not arguing that language should not evolve. They're arguing that society should not evolve. If society does not evolve, society dies.
Define families by what good they do, not by what outdated definitions dictate. Because I've called my mother a punk on many occasions, & I'll be damned if I've suggested my mother is a adolescent boy to be used by older men for erotic purposes. That's just creepy.