@Background Pony #5725  
And gays should be put into the pool of eligible parents just as much as any other, should the reach the qualifications for being good parents, they should be legit for the job of taking kids under their own wings.

@Background Pony #5725  
It’s a very similar comparison, someone thinks that letting the growth of the definition of marriage will somehow hurt their marriage or cause Nazi riding Dinosaurs to eat babies or they hate the people they don’t want to allow to marry or whatever, other group that’s not really hurting anyone wants to have their love be legitimized and recognized just as any other love, because they view it as being just as strong and deserving of legit status as any other.

@DasHiveMind  
Of course adoptions still happen, I never said they didn’t, but there are a lot of well-qualified families ready and eager to do so. We don’t need to take a “anyone we can get” sort of approach to the matter.

@Background Pony #5725  
No clue if this will work or not because I’m bad at Derpibooru comments but tada!  
http://www.orphanage.org/#america  
Adoptions still happen within the US, and as long as it does, the issue of it still needs to be discussed.

@DasHiveMind  
Yes, I’m well-familiar with that fallacious equivalency some people like to draw between “race” and “sexual orientation”.

@DasHiveMind  
We don’t really even have orphanages in this country any more, only foster homes.

@Background Pony #5725  
That’s quite a similar view certain White supremacists had on Bi-racial marriage, progressive thinking is the way to go, and if it doesn’t hurt anyone and makes some people happy, let them have it.

Yay! I stirred up the hornets’ by simply commenting on this! Mission accomplished.

@Background Pony #2536  
Only by your definition, smarty pants. In Japan, some guys have “married” video game and TV show characters, and in other places, polygamy is a-okay. I, on the other hand, simply happen to think marriage’s definition should be extremely limited.

@Background Pony #E717  
Thankfully religions, or at least large portions of their followers, have moved on with the times and are far more civil about the subjects then the medieval savage who took the Bible as literal as possible, and now-a-days tend to ignore the more…..violent parts of their books of faith.  
Yea, a lot of homophobia comes from religious assholes, thankfully some (a good portion, if not a majority) have the knowledge to put common sense as the top priority over their own belief.
 
 
@Background Pony #5725  
Why exactly? Single parents hold the same problems that gay parents have, not being the best possible candidate to hold their child. Oh sure, there’s going to be mental scaring from taking the child away from their mom or dad, but to counter this, I’m sure there’s going to be a dramatic improvement in terms of how well a kid is raised when he’s taken from the orphanage and given into a family.
 
Also state rights are a fading thing, through out the history of America the federal government has been gaining power from the state more and more, we’ve seen what happens when the State’s get uppity, with both American Confederacies, the one that came before the Union, and the one that tried to actively kill it, and unless some BIG changes happen soon, this trend will continue on, the Elastic Clause in the Constitution is one that is very used.
 
And the government shouldn’t need a majority of people to agree on a action that is clearly good, all giving Gays equal marriage rights as straights does is that, and break several people’s imaginary right to not be offended, while not allowing gay marriage….kinda disenfranchises Gays and says “no, you are not our equal”.
 
Jim Crow Laws were generally supported all around in the South and wanting to give Blacks equal rights was looked down upon, doesn’t make it right.

@Background Pony #5725  
You are seriously a bigot. It’s disgusting.

@Background Pony #2536  
@Background Pony #E717  
Now you guys are just being stupid.
 
@DasHiveMind  
Like I said, I’m against gay adoption, but I’m far more against taking children away from their natural-born parents (or parent) except in very extreme situations.
 
As for this…

That has a lot to do with this debate. A representative government should consider well what it “approves” of on behalf of its citizens. The legitimacy, if you will, that people seek to have through a redefinition of even state-recognized marriage isn’t something the government should have the power to do, at least not without overwhelming support of the people. And that is not currently the case.

@Background Pony #2536  
Whites should renounce their Christianity too.

The bible is also sexist and racist. All women and non-white races should renounce their faith.

@DasHiveMind  
I think that it is best for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who side with the Abrahamic faiths to renounce them. Why?? Because the bible is actually quite utterly anti-homosexual!! You don’t believe me?? Look at Leviticus and you shall see the very epitome of anti-gay sentiment. (Leviticus sees gay sex punishable by DEATH) Overall, gay and lesbian, as well as bisexual Christians and Muslims should renounce their faiths, as there is nothing “Spiritual” about them.

@Background Pony #5725  
So you agree, not being “100% the best possible thing for a children” isn’t a reason for them to not have children?
 
And? Legal marriage without a Priest going “And now I name you, husband and wife”, can still be recognized, you don’t need to have a religious ceremony to make it official & socially recognized, you can have a perfectly secular wedding.  
The legal document saying just holds a lot of metaphysical/metaphorical (use whichever word you think makes more sense for this) weight in it, otherwise you’d see a lot more people who decide to get married without going through the hassle of going through government paper work to announce their love.

@DasHiveMind  
Don’t be dense. No one should have their kids “taken away”, including someone who decides to get into a homosexual relationship who already has kids. No one has ever seriously suggested that. I do think there should be a general reluctance to allow them to adopt, though.
 
As for “legal marriage status”, marriage is more about cultural recognition than legal benefit. If tax status and such things were really what marriage is all about, I would just as soon have it that the state ignored marriage entirely except where child custody and visiting rights are concerned.

@Background Pony #E717  
Straight people do not need marriage, the closest thing I can understand and makes sense are legal civil unions.
 
I don’t particularly see why the don’t need it, and to compromise the issue on Civil Unions is to say that their marriage isn’t as “normal” or real as a straight one.

Gays really do not need marriage the closest thing that I can understand and make sense of are legal civil unions and the adoption of orphans.

@Background Pony #5725  
So what your saying is that single parents should have their kids taken away because they’re not the defacto best possible position for a kid to be in? Not being the “best” in some manner does not mean that it’s not valid.
 
Also, most gay people could care less about how the church or whatever organized belief views their marriage, legal marriage status is what they’re generally looking for, which involves what the state and federal government says, it’s usually accompanied by a religious marriage ritual, but that’s just dressing on the cake, not the actual cake itself.

@Background Pony #2536  
Here and here. Besides, it’s pretty intuitive anyway. A homosexual couple, as a parental unit, is always going to be lopsided, and will be less likely to provide a completely well-rounded rearing.
 
As for your other statement, the major monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all reject “gay marriage”, if they respect their own traditions. Hindus are evidently not consistently for or against it, and other cults and religions are generally too small to get into their opinions here. But ultimately, that doesn’t matter, because if some Wiccans want to hold some kind of “marriage ceremony” for a same-sex couple, they’re free to do so. That should not, however, mean that the state is required to recognize it as such. They might want to say that an entire community is “married” to each other all together, so should the state recognize that too? Of course not.

@Background Pony #5725  
“The traditional family unit is the healthiest for developing children”
 
Source needed, because all the research on the subject shows no significant change between gay/straight/lesbian parenting and the success of their children. If the government were staying out of marriage, gay marriage would already exist, because there are countless numbers of religions and/or institutions that would be hosting them.

@Background Pony #2536  
I’ve never heard of “gay marriage” being of any use to society as a whole, ever. The traditional family unit is the healthiest for developing children. So not only do I disagree personally, I also don’t believe it to be in the best interest of a nation to redefine marriage. And the government is the last thing that should be determining how marriage should be defined anyway.

@Background Pony #E717  
That matters .. how? Historical basis in the west says we should be enslaving people and burning witches. That’s an incredibly weak argument.

@Background Pony #2536  
What about its lack of a historical basis in western culture?? Even in cultures which never had much animosity toward gays or lesbians, Like Japan, China, Mongolia, or Thailand, Didn’t recognize same-gender marriage(though there were exceptions, like some Native American tribes). Also, take a good look at the Gay rights movements of the late 1960’s and the 1970s.