@Jesper_Jazzper_Isaksson, Religion is never going to approve gay marriage. At least what we regard as classical religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. These religions are based on dogmas and rules. Most people follow their religion because they need rules to follow. Heterosexuality is one of the base dogmas of these religions.

I believe in love. I believe that love in any form is pure and beautiful. I am not in a position to judge what is love and what isn't.

Although I can see the problem and the problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony from the beginning and the religious world today hasn't moved anywhere in this matter, which is a shame. I would like to think that if there is a god, he/she wouldn't have anything against love. After all, he says that the greatest thing is love.

If you ask me, I call for a change of thinking when it comes to marriage as the "only and ultimate way of showing each other love". IN a way we need to de-romantisize (word?) marriage, especially since the church claims the marriage to be its holy ceremony. You can get married today without doing it in a church or by a pastor and I believe that marriage is as beautiful as any.

So my answer is yes. I wish that gay people could experience the same joy as everyone else who is in love. At the same time, I am hoping for marriage to become less...less romantic. Kinda.

Yes, in the off chance (probably way below 1%) and there's a straight and a gay couple wanting to adopt the same kid at the same time and all other aspects of those couples are equal, I would rather toss a coin than discriminate against one of the couples. Anyway, the scenario you're describing is so marginal I don't see a point in discussing it. You can't have such a marginal scenario dictate the overall policy in this issue.
.
I am willing to bet that if you take a 100 adults, who had been adopted by gay couples as kids, and ask them whether they would have preferred to stay in the orphanage or be adopted and have a family, I am willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of those adults would prefer the adoption option. I have no way to prove that, because since there's no such policy, there are no such adults to ask in this point of time, however I have a strong feeling this would be the response. I can't imagine a kid preferring to stay in an orphanage (be it a Bulgarian or Norwegian one) than being in a home with parents who care and love him/her. No way.
.
One of the most natural things for a kid is to have a healthy home environment and to be raised by people who love and care for him. Whether the kid has a higher chance of turning gay, so what? The kid's future should not be held hostage to the strange belief of this being somehow anti-evolutionary.

@Valentin_Ivanov, I know that my question is hypothetical but still I think there is a reason in it. So you are saying that if the two couples are exactly the same except that one is gay and the other one is not, we'd rather toss a coin to decide the kid's future instead of directly giving it to the straight couple.
On you question - again it depends on the case, i.e. living standards quality in the institution. Maybe in some cases it will be better for the kid to live in a gay family than in an institution and don't agree that this will be the case in the majority cases. In other words I hesitate if gay family or institution is a better future for a kid, but I definitely put the straight couple on first place and I think it should be the primary choice in any adoption regulations.
BTW, @Valentin_Ivanov, you have biased your previous point in the opposite direction of your believes expressed on the topic.

@Yordan_Yordanov, You are avoiding answering the question. I said IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME, i.e. the two couples are equally educated and they live in the same neighborhood. Should the straight ones take the kid?

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev: What if the "regular" couple are non-educated persons and live in a ghetto together with 10 other "regular" couples while the gay couple are highly educated persons with good social and financial state? I say NO.

@Valentin_Ivanov, @Yordan_Yordanov, I have a question for you. Suppose two couples are applying for adopting a child - one gay couple and one "regular" couple. If everything else is the same, should the "regular" couple be given advantage over the gay couple, because of their "regular" sexuality? I say YES.

The problem is the marriage itself. It is just an artificial institution that means nothing and it should be removed in our "modern" society.
As for the gays - they should be granted the very same civil rights as heterosexuals. The same is true for the marriage although I don't consider it as a privilege.

So you would rather have a kid being brought up in institution, than in a home with two loving parents? That's strange.

I don't care whether the kid becomes gay or not, it deserves the chance of having parents. Not to mention that having parents and family drastically increases the chances of becoming a middle-class citizen and drastically decreases the chances of ending up in jail.
.
Having a home with parents >>>>> the increased chance of being gay.

@Steliyan_Petkov_Georgiev I must disagree. I am in favor of gay couples adopting children (of course after going through the same procedures heterosexual couples go through).
.
What is better - an orphan (or abandoned) child living in an institution or being adopted by two loving parents, even if they are gay?
.
This seals the debate for me. It's always better to be brought up in a home with parents than in an institution. I see no reason depriving a child of loving parents, even if they are gay.

I think gay marriage should be legal.

Moreover, I cannot think of a single reason why it should be illegal. Someone care to play devil's advocate?