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

It signals signs of not being steadfast on what you believe.  If she held a solid moral conviction—we would know.  Because she would ALWAYS be consistent.  Never vote FOR anything allowing it — let others vote for it.  Then you TOLERATE it.  Not cave in and say you are tolerating it.  You are not; you are tacitly okaying it. 

No sir — I do not like that example.  

You can pick any of the ones that coated against it all the time.  But understand that it is the law and so they tolerate it but do not agree or okay it. 

They are kind about it but do NOT agree. That is tolerating.  You do not have to cave into to tolerate.  That is simply being weak and swayed easily. 

Voted not coated. Autocorrect always thinking it know what I want to write better than me. 

She has held this position since last Dec.

Dec. 1, 2021, 6:00 PM EST
By Sahil Kapur
WASHINGTON — Sen. Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine, favors passing legislation to enshrine the protections of Roe v. Wade into law, her office said Wednesday.

"Senator Collins supports the right to an abortion and believes that the protections in the Roe and Casey decisions should be passed into law. She has had some conversations with her colleagues about this and is open to further discussions," a spokeswoman, Annie Clark, said in an email.

She seems to tolerate abortions.

"They are kind about it but do NOT agree. That is tolerating. You do not have to cave into to tolerate. That is simply being weak and swayed easily. "

Tolerance is the least of the agreeable stations. 

It is expression to state I respect your privacy in this affair.

Not my business attitude.

Far from the you can't do that they n this community

Or we support you in this endeavor

Tolerance is this is not my concern.

Again maybe the term tolerance needs to be more clearly defined. In a degree pattern.

Unconditional love

Love

Like closely

Fond of

Like as friends co-workers ect.

Have no ill will 

Disapprove with but tolerate.

Disapprove with malice 

Despise 

Hate.

......

'Supports the right to right to an abortion'?  Okay.  Then she is okay with it and is apparently for it and even would vote for things that allow it, etc.  That is NOT someone that is against it but tolerating it?

Completely different than someone that is totally against it but tolerates it.

But since you were mainly talking about same-sex when you brought up the issue of tolerance, I still would like your answers to these questions.  You couched the same-sex issue with it being consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom.  That is not the same as abortion.  That is not consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom.

So, again, should you and your government tolerate polygamy and incest based on your assumptions? 

If not, why not?  If so, where does this sort of thing stop?  Or does anything between consenting adults in the bedroom go?

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2008/09/30/pro-choice-does-not-mean-pro-abortion-an-argument-for-abortion-rights-featuring-the-rev-carlton-veazey/

Skip the abortion part for now -- that is a different argument. 

Answer the other questions about the 'the consenting adults in the privacy of the bedroom' stuff.

Tolerance isn’t easy. Because we rely so heavily on our own experiences and worldview, it can be hard to see things from another person’s perspective or accept that someone else’s viewpoint may be equally valid with ours. But tolerance is a skill that can bring greater peace and harmony to our lives and the lives of others.

Source.

https://eugenetherapy.com/article/4-tips-for-building-tolerance-for-others/

Good because my argument was going to the plague to society foster care program citing statistics of children placed in the state run program and the rates of suicide or incarceration following release from state juvenile custody. 

The product of unwanted pregnancies. 

I am not asking how to tolerate it or the definition of tolerance.  I am okay with various forms of this.

My question is still the same, no matter how you define tolerance or deal with tolerance. 

So, again, should you and your government tolerate polygamy and incest based on your assumptions?

Apparently, it is not such an easy question to answer -- or you would have been able to answer it by now.

Yes--there are offshoot problems with this issue.  But to me they are all cop-outs.  I have yet to hear a valid, convincing argument on this.

So, we will skip this one.

I state the same as I have that privacy in the bedroom regardless of what labels are placed upon are not a public standard but between the participants in the privacy of their home. With the clause of consenting adults. 

Polygamy is practiced throughout the world.

Incest is allowed in certain conditions in areas of this world.

We came from an incestual relationship between Noah his wife and their sons. To Father Abraham who married his sister. 

Tolerance is not acceptance it is a regarding the issue as not my business or concern 

What does the frustration mean?  Do you feel you have answered this sufficiently?  Was it a 'yes'? Or that you are not sure, yet?

I know there are examples of it.  I know it may be tolerated elsewhere.  That is not my question.

My question is do you think you and your government should allow these things, also?

This seems to be 'yes' to me.

I felt I have clearly stated yes, 

We can deal with this as orgies are within this clause the participants do not need to be married.

I can tolerate the destruction of the unborn child , I can simply look the other way at what ever gross stuff is happening in someone else's bedroom. 

 I feel that these are individual choice and not be dictated by Washington any state legislature or community. Government. We are supposedly a free society. 

No sir, you had not clearly stated a 'yes' to all of that until now. 

Now that I know you are okay with it.  Let me ask how you feel about Paul Varnell's statement.  He was the well-known gay activist.

He wrote this:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

Do you agree with him and think he was correct when he wrote this?

He is trying to disassociate from the simple scope of the problem. The LGBTQ community needs to be accepted as humans as well.

For nearly 100 years the free love and women's movement has pushed for acceptance.

Who doesn’t accept them as humans?

What ‘simple scope’?  This was one of the biggest activists with a huge audience saying this?  You do not agree with him?