A typical argument I hear from anti-gay-marriage advocates is that marriage should not be allowed to a section of society rife with promiscuity and, occasionally, sexual deviants with offenses such as pedophilism. This has always seemed logical to me, although a bad reason to deny the right to marry. Right now, homosexualism is stretched to define anyone who may have homosexual tendencies. It includes loving families who want government protection as well as extremely promiscuous single individuals. There is no defining factor between the two that is recognized as the government, and so homosexual society is not associated with the strong moral principles that many homosexual families deeply believe in. I think that the availability of marriage to the homosexual population would go a long way to supporting the lives of couples who really want the protection that the marriage ceremony gives. Couples want not only shared benefits from their workplaces and the ability to share bank accounts, but also the ability to call for child support and the right to claim custody if the marriage ends in divorce. This is perfectly available to many heterosexual families, but homosexual families are deprived of these reasonable rights that are known to help provide a stable family life. How can the absence of such rights possibly help the moral stability of the homosexual population? Many homosexual families are stable and want to raise children. Many already have them. So why should these families only be married in name, and not by the protection that government support brings?