Love is love. It’s all good. Marry the one you love. Makes sense to me. On adoption, not everyone has the ability (physically) to have/carry a child. So adoption is a great option for someone to become a parent. There a lot of kids all over the world that need homes/able parents.

 

If I could word it differently, I'd just say let people live their lives and be happy.
They're human beings, not objects that should necessarily be sorted by specific attributes.
As for the adoption, once again, I'd rather have good human beings as parents instead of shitty ones, regardless of their status, gender, identity, belief, etc.

If that makes a bit more sense

 

Love is love and that's all that matters. It doesn't concern anybody else.

And why shouldn't any loving couple be able to raise a kid? Who the fuck is anyone to say otherwise? Sorry, but I don't respect homophobes. It's only their fault that they're scared of gay people.

 

I support gay marriage and adoption.

 

but that's the issue, isn't it? Same sex couples are actively being denied the right to marry and adopt children because someone, somewhere is against it.

 

Technically speaking, Jesus has one dad (God) that NTR'd the other. If the Bible is to be believed, anyways. What's that you, say? The bible forbids adultery? Uhhhh...apparently God is exempt from that one. Yeah. Let's go with that.

As someone on the Autism spectrum, please kindly fuck off with calling that a "problem." I mean this in the kindest way possible.

And no, civil rights issues should be on people's radar. The fact is, they're important to the entire country. If everyone were to look away like that, we'll be in a very bad state down the line.

 

Gay marriage. If the gays want to be as unhappy as every married cunt I have ever met then so be it. I would rather get rid of marriage as any kind of legal affair/status entirely but pending that day then in the modern world I see no reason why it should logically be denied to those looking to fumble matching genitals.

Adoption by the gays. There are arguments against it that I would say hold some water from a logical or scientific perspective, however they are all utterly obviated by "foster care sucks, being adopted by some gays is orders and orders of magnitude better than that and still produces good outcomes, oh look there are loads and loads in foster care".
The more interesting question is whether I would support the rights of various agencies to choose to consider it (there are race and religion based ones, the latter I have very serious misgivings with) or have it count as a negative in determining things, and to what extent it might count as one. There is also the one for courts in the case of familial or directed adoption and challenges or decisions there. I am not able to get to it being a complete non factor in decision making there, ultimately it would be a fairly minor one but still one. To go one further I would probably say while I happily support the job/school/housing/... parts of legal frameworks dealing with discrimination I would oppose, pending proper studies, a similar line for court adoption proceedings. In the case that the child is able to make a reasonably informed decision then non factor.

That is a curious one.

If I look at all the other apes, no small number of primitive tribes and a fair few less primitive ones as well then there is a rather more communal aspect to things. The household unit as you describe is a rather more modern invention (as in quite some time after the industrial revolution and the move to cities). That is possibly a bit abstract though so a question that works here is "a kid you kind of know is crying, do you try to sort it yourself or try to find its parents? Same question if we remove the "kind of" part?". The answers I have had to that have been eye opening to me, and that is before we discuss the sex of the person in this hypothetical but that is a different topic again. In my case the mere fact it was a question that had different answers beyond "obviously I would help" was somewhat enlightening to me when it was posed, though it explained a lot.

If I have accidentally done the whole strawman bit there then I will walk it back but I would similarly call for a clarification/distinction on your part as the modern world has changed a few things.

 

I voted yes to both.

Personally, I think marriage is an outdated ritual instilled by a cult that caused fear more harm than good in the world (despite its intentions), so I don't understand why anyone of any gender wants to do it. Nonetheless : I respect people's decision to disagree with me (heh... My own parents are married, so it's not all bad).
The topic is pretty much a non issue here in Belgium, as everyone's allowed to marry anyone (okay : 18+...but that's not the topic).

Adoption... Iirc that's not an issue here either. And frankly : it's pretty stupid to be against adoption as supply is larger than demand. As such the question isn't about the backward issue of whether a child needs two be raised by two genders but whether it has someone raising him /her in the first place.

 

Why though? If a woman wants to carry a child for a same-sex couple, why would that be an issue? It's not like they are forced into it. Some couples want a biological child, just like everyone else and they should have that right to do so. If someone else is willing to carry that child for them and willing to put their own body through that, why would that be issue?