In a push for tolerance how can we have tolerance the intolerant

I do not understand what you mean by 'nicked'?

No.  No one should be ridiculed or mocked.  The question can be asked -- just because you have the 'right' to get married, does it necessarily follow, that you have the right to adopt?  This has also opened up many other issues.

But no -- I do not think you should mock or ridicule anyone.  If anything, you can argue that you should have sympathy for them.  That is, if you disagree about the lifestyle and think that is not natural, etc.

just because you have the 'right' to get married, does it necessarily follow, that you have the right to adopt 

So their marriage union should not be equal to a heterosexual marriage?

So in lui of abortions you be willing to Tolerate allow LGBTQ community who have married and meet all the other qualified conditions to adopt and raise foster children?

By definition, it really is not equal.  By slowly eating away at people's definitions we have made them think it is equal, but it is not.  They still have to involve a female at some point in their marriage.  So, from the very start it is not equal.  On down the line it is not equal, you will not have a female helping raise the children, etc. and so on.  This does not mean it is taking away from their rights.  So, we do not ridicule them.  Now we let them adopt.  Now we let them set themselves up as if they are equal.  It just does not work that way.  The same way you cannot mislabel your gender and expect it to be normal.  A civil union is not the same as a marriage.

Where gay marriage is allowed it is termed equal to a traditional marriage union. Civil unions do not exist here.

So how are they not influencing children as the care providers. How can this not be addressed as being an equal marriage within the context of the language of laws.

That is a totally different question altogether.  Now you are involving a third party.  Yes, if that is the only alternative.  Of course, a child would be better off in a loving stable environment whether with two guys or a man and a woman --instead of in a worse situation. 

But this is forcing into the discussion an unnecessary issue just to try to convince someone to be okay with something that is against their beliefs.  Again, that is trying to 'force' tolerance onto someone by using a sympathy technique, by saying, "What about the child?  Wouldn't the child be better off?"

That argument only goes so far.  A child would be better off there also, instead of an abusive situation or neglectful one -- where the marriage had a man and a woman.

But one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  The ideal situation for a child to be raised in is a kind, loving stable environment with a loving mother and father.  That is what should be considered NOT whether the other should adopt just because they want to.  Because that is what you are asking people to really 'tolerate' at that point.  Now you are trying to 'force' them to 'tolerate' by default through sympathy.

In other words, that someone even has to ask that question and people have to consider it at all should explain something about the question itself.

Where gay marriage is allowed it is termed equal to a traditional marriage union. Civil unions do not exist here.

Yes--it is termed equal and we have 'forced' people to 'tolerate' it as equal.  But just terming it that does not make it so.  Most people that are honest really see the unions differently.

A person can also call themselves the wrong pronoun, it still does not make it so.  But we have moved along to this point.  It is still the slippery slope -- where we have convinced ourselves it is okay and it has led to more things like that now. 

So how are they not influencing children as the care providers. How can this not be addressed as being an equal marriage within the context of the language of laws.

They very much are influencing them.  That is the point a lot of people have issue with.  The 'laws' have been set up now for people to 'tolerate' by force that which they normally would not tolerate.

That does not make it correct.

Well to meet in the middle we wmust rationalize how much you can tolerate and his much we are willing to concede.

The off spring of consenting adults is their bedroom is in fact part of the context of privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults. 

And what point is intolerable.

Susan Collins voted against the democrats version. 

But she has put a position as make ng roe vs Wade federal law. 

She has had a point of tolerance.