I would have voted "other" in the poll, had that option been present.
Same-sex couples should be permitted to adopt .. but, they must conform to the same state-by-state regulations as any other couple.
Thus, if a state says the couple must be married, then either the state must change their statute to additionally say "or homarried" (or whatever word that state has employed to differentiate marriage (meaning "a man and a woman as husband and wife") from what obviously isn't "marriage" (like a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a non-romantic domestic partnership, or whatever)) or the couple must conform to existing state statutes or not adopt.
Regardless, however, a same-sex couple should be discouraged from adopting.
This is because that parental gender role modeling significantly teaches a child subliminally how to behave in a romantic relationship as an adult and the great majority of the time a same-sex couple will damage a child thusly.
In a marriage, the man and the woman as parents model how a man and a woman would behave in a romantic relationship, so if their children are either a boy or a girl, and if their children are straight (it is a roughly 94+ percent likelihood statistically that a child is straight, not homosexual, transsexual, or "bi"-sexual), then the children receive the proper and positive gender-appropriate role modeling.
But in a homarriage, two men as parents present negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a female straight child, and two women as parents present a negative and damaging gender romantic role modeling gender-wise alone to a straight child and especially to a male straight child.
Two men in a same-sex romantic relationship are frequently physically rough with each other in a way that a man and a woman simply aren't, and thus a straight female child raised by these men would likely internalize that roughness as a "desirable" trait in her relationship .. and end up in a relationship with an abusive man where she could get severely injured or killed.
Both married and homarried couples are equally apt percentage-wise to bring a similar degree of dysfunction into their relationship which will harm their kids, so this is a wash comparing either type of couple.
But a homarried (same-sex) couple introduces an additional significant dysfunction inculcation into their children as I've just presented, which occurs the overwhelming vast majority of the time (the rare exception being a gay boy raised by two men partners and a lesbian girl raised by two women patners).
The severity of the damage done to such children cannot be rightly and intelligently overlooked and dismissed.
Though we know that homosexuality is an epigentic anomaly inculcated in a prenatal human during gestation, we as yet don't have a definitive lab test to determine if an infant, toddler, or young child is straight or gay or trans or the so-called "bi". If we did have such a test, we could direct gay boys to be adopted by male same-sex partners and lesbian girls to be adopted by female same-sex partners, as either of these adopted by either the opposite gender same-sex partners or a straight couple would be significantly harmed gender role-modeling-wise.
Arguably, going without a parent in foster care is worse than the harmful gender role modeling I've presented here .. and I do stress the word "arguably".
But there are many opposite-sex couples seeking to adopt .. and I would advise that until all qualifying opposite-sex couples adoptions have been satisfied, that qualifying same-sex couples be placed at the end of the line, for understandably good reasons I've presented here.
I'm not saying that same-sex couples not be permitted to adopt.
I'm simply saying that we need to be sensitive to the very real needs of the children being adopted first.
It's simply stupid to be compelled into doing known harm to children merely because one has been sucked into a victim mentality acting-out state regarding the current issues projected onto same-sex couples.