Multiple studies have shown that the kids of same-sex parents do fine and grow up no different than kids raised by straight parents. Even if kids in homes with a mom and a dad do better, shouldn't we focus our resources in helping those kids who are doing less well and in less than ideal environments (for whatever reason) rather than giving the government benefits marriage offers only to the kids who are already doing fine (as we are doing now)?

Many straight couples aren't ideal parents. They may have poor morals, do drugs, subject kids to second hand smoke, drink, belittle education, put the kids in day care every day, live in a poor/dangerous neighborhood, don't provide a well balanced diet, who promoted the sanctity of marriage by getting married, while drunk, and by an Elvis impersonator at a drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas, etc...Why are such sub-ideal couples allowed to marry, but a lesbian couple, both with BYU degrees in Marriage, Family and Human Development, who are active in a church, who are actively involved in the child's local school, who live in a nice neighborhood, who have one parent stay home and make nutritious well balanced meals and raises the child with no day care, where neither parent smokes, drinks, does drugs, etc...is NOT allowed to marry? Which couple is more fit to raise a child and deserve the protections marriage provides spouses and kids? Which couple will get it however?

The issue isn't about providing the theoretic ideal environment. If that were the case, opposite-sex families shouldn't be allowed children or marriage since we all do things that are less than ideal for the best possible mental, physical, spiritual, social and academic well being of our children.

The studies have shown that the children in single parent households do worse. Denying same-sex couples the opportunity to wed forces them to be "single parents" and therefore makes their homes less stable. We also know that the kids of heterosexuals do better when their parents are married rather than just living together. The parents' relationship is more stable and grounded and that gives kids a more secure feeling. We know that when the parents are married rather than just roommates, that the relationship lasts longer. Far more unmarried couples split up than marriages. Marriage provides more stability to the kids and a more ideal environment. Denying gays marriage objectively harms their kids and makes them feel more insecure and increases their risk of living in a single parent home and the accompanying harm that it causes. Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-child and anti-family. Why are we LDS promoting this anti-child and anti-family agenda?

Marriage benefits society because it causes people to support each other rather than having individuals rely on government for help. Alimony, Community Property laws, Child Support, etc...are all examples of how marriage causes people to help others rather than having them rely on government. Click here for a list of these rights. If women didn't have these protections, a man could divorce his wife and literally put her and the kids out on the street with just the clothes on their backs. The situation wouldn't be tolerated in today's society but it is an every day reality for gays. If a lesbian has children after moving in with another lesbian and stays home with her kids while her partner works, she can eventually be kicked out, with the kids, with no recourse. Even while they live together, she enjoys no insurance benefits, survivorship benefits, or the right not to be forced to testify against her partner as married people currently enjoy. Opposing Civil Same-Sex Marriage is anti-child and anti-"stay at home parent". Would LDS wives and mothers be willing to raise their kids under those conditions? Should we force others to?

We seem to forget about the children of same-sex couples. These kids exist and aren't going away. Same-sex couples will continue to have and adopt children. These are innocent kids who have done nothing wrong and yet society withholds their needed legal protections. These innocent victims are simply "collateral damage" in the war against equality and for enforcing subjective morality on society.

The issue of whether gay parents are ideal or not is a non issue since many gay couples are far more suited to be excellent parents than many straight couples as the example above shows.

If we REALLY want to make marriage about bringing kids into an ideal environment and making things completely fair and equal, here's what we can do -

Deny marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples and have straight couples complete a marriage license application form that asks whether the couple has poor morals, does drugs, subjects kids to second hand smoke, drinks, belittle education, will put the kids in day care every day, lives in a poor/dangerous neighborhood, doesn't provide a well balanced diet, etc.... Those admitting subjecting kids to less than ideal circumstances will be treated just like same-sex couples and denied marriage licenses. If not providing an ideal environment for child rearing is sufficient reason to deny gays the right to marry, the same should apply to straights as well. This will make sure that only those couples providing an ideal environment for child rearing are allowed to marry. I doubt that many of us would support this idea since it would apply to heterosexuals as well.

The bottom line is that denying marriage to same-sex couples for allegedly having less than the ideal environment for raising kids is hypocritical since very few, if any, heterosexual couples offer the ideal environment for raising kids either.

The only other way to realistically achieve complete fairness and equality is to simply allow gays to marry. Why is that so wrong?