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

Sure.  These are separate points though.  Privacy, within reason, is expected in homes.  "Forcing' someone to be tolerant about something they do not agree with is another issue.

Still they are not the same thing is all I am saying.  I can be kind to a person on death row -- it does not mean I have to tolerate something he did that I do not agree with.

Murder is not tolerated, The act happens , but it is not encouraged, or supported 

tolerance is not supporting but allowing actions ,

It deals in allowance for the human condition.

Where murder rape slavery is correctly prosecuted

Drug use is tolerated , it isn't lawful or encouraged but reasonably It is allowed in certain conditions.

Tolerance is not acceptance. 

Privacy of the bedroom between consenting adults is not a public standard and deals with freedom to love who one wishes.

[Quote: Originally Posted by nature1970]Murder is not tolerated, The act happens , but it is not encouraged, or supported    tolerance is not supporting but allowing actions , It deals in allowance for the human condition. [Quote] 'Not encouraged'?  Are you sure?  A big argument can be made that it has been before and in some places absolutely is.  It is even tolerated. 

So, again, absolutely anything among consenting adults in the privacy of the bedroom should be 'tolerated'?

I guess we need to define tolerance,.

Tolerance is not condemning or condoning actions it is allowing human beings to make choices even if they are not your choices.

As example Joe Biden feels abortion is wrong his personal belief. However he tolerates abortion as an individual choice.

In my reasoning what happens in their  ( consenting adults ) bedroom is in fact their business. And not of the public matter. It is not to be regulated by a community but by the participants.

Again, no matter what it is and no matter who it is?  You are okay with it?  Polygamy, incest, and anything else between consenting adults in the bedroom?  You are okay tolerating any of that?

When did he last flat out say that he thinks abortion is wrong?

This is a completely different issue that you have brought up now.  Keep in mind this one is not being done in the bedroom and not between consenting adults. 

It is the product of sex between consenting adults.

This is important – Joe Biden has made clear, more than once, that he personally believes life begins at conception.

https://albertmohler.com/2021/09/08/a-profile-of-moral-collapse-president-biden-abortion-and-the-culture-of-death

I showed examples of incestual relationship.

Abraham and Sarah were siblings. 

Father of Isaac, who was father of Jacob who was father to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Franklin Roosevelt and His wife Eleanor were first cousins. If we go back to flood the entirety of the world can be derived by a family. Noah and his son's and their wives.

Polygamy is practiced through out the world.... Muslims practice polygamy.

I am sure that there is an amendment that allows for religious beliefs some where in the constitution.....

What is?  Polygamy, incest?  Yes.  Any and all of that?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. 

Polygamy is only encouraged by the Koran where it concerns "oppressed or the orphans among women" (4:3), if justice can be done by marrying more than one.

Incest modern was when two half siblings from different town unknown was that they were brother sister with dna testing by that time they were married.

In Ireland, I think. Could be Sweden or that Sweden us the only country that will wed siblings but is lawful conduct in areas of this marble your calling earth....

Hence tolerated. 

A particularly important profile in moral collapse now resides in the White House. The story of President Joe Biden’s slippery shape-shifting on the abortion issue is both revealing and horrifying.

But where is the consistency in believing that abortion is a grave moral evil and yet defending it as a “constitutional right?”

In a crucial 24-hour period, with Biden’s chance at the 2020 nomination slipping away, he reversed himself in a 180-degree turn. His supposed stand on conviction just evaporated. On June 5, 2019, Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to the Hyde Amendment. Twenty-four hours later on June 6, Joe Biden did a complete turn. He said, “If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code.”

In other words, even as Biden had claimed intellectual consistency over political expediency, he surrendered a nearly fifty-year-old core conviction—and he did so, to be clear, because he so desperately wanted the 2020 nomination. Once it became clear that he would not be allowed within 100 yards of the Democratic nomination for president while clinging to Hyde, he sang a different tune, coming out as aggressively opposed to the Hyde Amendment.

2021: Biden ran in the election on a radically pro-abortion agenda and has made good on his promises. In 2021, he issued a series of executive orders such as striking down the Mexico City Policy, which limited American funds used for abortions and abortion advocacy overseas. He reinstated Title X funding for Planned Parenthood. He seeks the repeal of the Hyde Amendment and fully supports a taxpayer funded system for abortions on demand. His presidential appointments, ranging across the government and the judiciary, have been predictably “progressive.”

Then, last Friday, came Biden’s final act of surrender.

On September 3rd, 2021, Joe Biden stated, “I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception. I respect that—don’t agree—but I respect that.”

The fury has been predictable given the state of the Democratic Party and its commitment to abortion on demand. On Thursday and Friday of last week, President Joe Biden made comments condemning the law, calling it “un-American” and ambiguously described “whole of government” efforts to oppose the Texas legislation.

This is important – Joe Biden has made clear, more than once, that he personally believes life begins at conception.

Until last Friday, that is, when, in condemning the Texas law, President Biden said: “I respect those who believe that life begins at conception – I respect that. Don’t agree but I respect that.”

Those of us who have been watching the moral collapse of Joe Biden knew this moment had to come. It came just days ago, but the story of Biden’s surrender to the radical pro-abortion position has been progressing over decades, slowly, and then suddenly.

1972: Joe Biden, who identified as a devout Roman Catholic, ran for the United States Senate from Delaware. Biden’s Roman Catholic identity largely shielded him from questions about abortion.

1976: Joe Biden supported this Amendment, voting for it in 1976. For context, the Hyde Amendment in 1976 did not carve out exemptions for rape or incest. He held this position supporting for forty-five years—that is until he didn’t. Biden bragged constantly about his principled defense of the Hyde Amendment. But, as we shall see, all that changed within 24 hours in June of 2019, when Biden knew he had to reverse his position if he had any chance of gaining the 2020 Democratic nomination.

That is why I asked you when he last said it.  

Maybe Biden was not the best example to use.

If he held that view for moral grounds and then let it be compromised for political advancement — then that is not a conviction at all.  That is not something he held deeply to for moral reasons and then tolerated it just because it was the law.  He swayed with the political winds on it.

And NOW he does NOT believe life begins at conception — he disagrees with it! 

Not at all a good example — he was never steadfast in voting completely against it or even abstaining.  He did what he felt was politically advantageous for him. 

Never forget ... the title of the article you linked:

A Profile of Moral Collapse: President Biden, Abortion, and the Culture of Death

It was not titled anything about how he stood his ground on moral convictions but ‘tolerated’ the law of the land.  No.  He caved. 

So, to me, I cannot accept him as a good example of your premise at all.  

Again, I am not asking you for example of it really.  

I want to know why this is not ‘tolerated’ for you guys in the USA?  

There are very good philosophical and logical reasons they are not the same as same-sex.  I just do not see you using one of those, yet.  

So, I want to know if same-sex should be tolerated to you (maybe, as long as it is in the privacy of the bedroom) — do you tolerate the others?  If you do, do you think the government should tolerate them also?

I am not clear on what you bring this up for?

You think there should be outright religious exemptions for, say, polygamy?  If so, that would open all sorts of other things.  

That is not what that amendment is about.  

I am not asking about it from a religious perspective.  

Just from a philosophical tolerance of someone’s personal preference.  

You are steadfast about same-sex being ‘tolerated’. But is that where you draw the line?  If so, why draw it there?

Or — again — are you okay with tolerating polygamy and incest by your government?

How about Susan Collins .

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is on record supporting the right to an abortion. After Wednesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the case that might nullify that right in many states, Collins’ office issued a statement saying she “believes that the protections in the Roe and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] decisions should be passed into law.” It added that Collins has “had some conversations with her colleagues about this and is open to further discussions.”

This signals tolerance. 

Take all of the half-siblings part out of it.  Take all of the did not know they were related out of it.  Take all of the procreation out of it.  

These are siblings where the female is past child-bearing age.  They know they are brother and sister.  Or two brothers, sisters or any other combination.  Is this to be tolerated by you and your government — under your philosophy?

Now the same question about polygamy?  But for this situation, I will allow that none are related.  Is that to be tolerated?