household

I understand where he is going with this metaphor of a single parent household possibly being an airplane that crashes, but I don’t particularly agree with him. How I understood the metaphor is that the household with “natural” parents will have children who will be successful, but on the other hand, because a single parent household is not a “natural” one, their children won’t be successful. I guess it all really depends on how people define success, because only about top 10% of the population has the “power” such as big money and fame. I don’t think it’s anybody’s rights to tell people what to do or what not to do. Because somebody believes that “unnatural households” wouldn’t be as successful as the “natural households”, that doesn’t mean that people should dismiss them.
I’m still thinking about different ways to “justify” the “unnatural households”. I think it has to do with different terminologies. Misha and I were having dinner one night and we talked about this, and he and I argued about the term “marriage” and the effect of the term “marriage” on the society. Misha told me that because marriage is a Christian term, it’s not fair for them for homosexuals to call their “union” a marriage. Although, I understand that I didn’t really understand the importance of the term. Things change, and people change, why can’t a term “marriage” evolve into something that means more than just a Christian term that describes a “union” of a woman and a man?