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

Take reproduction out of it.  That would not apply obviously to a gay couple.  But make it an older set of siblings past reproductive age -- where are you then?

I do not remember the exact figures off the top of my head, but there was a survey of philosophers some years back asking how they felt about moral realism. Somewhere over half accepted moral realism -- as opposed to anti-realism or some other offshoots.

If you study philosophy there has been an upsurge in moral realism in the last 50 years or so.

One possible reason for this is the way the various rights have come to the forefront in at least that amount of time.

In the early part of the last century the moral decisions were deemed unverifiable, thus not meaningful. Somewhere between then and the last 50 years moral decisions were thought of as more than just emotional -- but necessarily seen as true.

This led into what philosophy would call correspondence of truth. If moral decisions are true then they must correspond to facts, etc. For example, the Buffalo shooting. We would see the shooting, of course, but how could we understand its wrongness, etc.

So, now the moral decision philosophy came back into play.
Nowadays, it is looked at if you refuse moral realism, then you have to say it not true that an evil act is morally wrong, say, the Buffalo shooting.

You can take the question in philosophy of rights all the way back to the Revolution or so. But about 50 years ago it became very much more in the forefront. The abortion issue is the prime example. It is no longer seen as an emotion -- now folks say it as a moral fact. So, the same thing with gay rights -- they are demanded from a moral right as a fact. For the normal reasons you always hear in these arguments.
For example, as one guy has put it:

"It seems to me that the logic of universal human rights requires the invocation of truth, hence of moral realism. What would one have thought if the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had ended with: 'Of course it isn't actually true that we have these rights but they are something we support'?"

Again, I am not saying I support the philosophy. But I tried to give a very, very basic trail of how we got to this point from a philosophical view. There are a lot more issues and nuances here. But the moral realism cannot be swerved in the discussion when trying to legalize things we want just to satisfy someone else's rights, etc.
So, to say the philosophy of tolerating the intolerant applies is still a big leap, at least to me.

The question is still what are you basing your law on?  Why is your law different on an issue than someone else's law on the very same issue?  That is where the dilemma from a philosophical viewpoint would come into play.  Is it moral realism, or not?  Is it factually evident or not?  Etc., etc.

Or maybe your argument just goes away from philosophy altogether now -- and into something that you just want?  Back into the emotional aspect of it, at best?

We are dealing with tolerance, you continue to divert to absolute tolerance but this is not a rational concept.

Even God is without absolute tolerance although he seems to tolerate a great deal more than others. 

If tolerance is needed, than acceptance to the intolerant needs to be achieved hence we deal with Law, laws divide what is tolerated to what is not tolerated.

I am using privacy ,individuality, and moral arguments to state that I believe that consenting adults can love who they wish , a not be dictated to by government entity intrusive into private affairs, I showed where laws were tolerant for a thousands of years dealing with exact nature of consenting adults.

We find a problem with tolerating another's private conduct. 

We moved from a smoking expecting mother should she be charged . I believe that the affairs of the heart are private in nature. 

I understand you don't find this tolerant, and argue that we must tolerate those who find the actions immoral. 

From what stand point do we begin to push for tolerance....?

As you brought up abortions they have been recorded since 1550 in ancient Egypt again not a new subject.

The practice of induced abortion—the deliberate termination of a pregnancy—has been known since ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform or attempt abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques. A naturally occurring abortion that ends a pregnancy sometimes is described as a "spontaneous" abortion or, with the more frequently used popular euphemism, "miscarriage", to distinguish a difference between an induced abortion and a naturally occurring one, but medically, abortion is the terminology applied to either natural or induced.

The Vedic and smrti laws of India reflected a concern with preserving the male seed of the three upper castes; and the religious courts imposed various penances for the woman or excommunication for a priest who provided an abortion.[3] In the epic Ramayana, there is description that the practice of abortion was being done by the surgeons or barbers in those days.[when?][4] The only evidence of the death penalty being mandated for abortion in the ancient laws is found in Assyrian Law, in the Code of Assura, c. 1075 BCE;[5] and this is imposed only on a woman who procures an abortion against her husband's wishes. The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE.[6]

Source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

As to your disagreement with Wikipedia. 

The source of article was listed.

https://www.glowm.com/section-view/heading/History%20of%20Contraception/item/375

Abortion is not a modern issue. It as timeless as coded law. 

However as recorded law it was at that time

 it tolerated under certain conditions .

Again we are moving twords how to persuade the intolerant to tolerate different ethics .

“A debate in philosophy has described this quandary.

For there to be tolerance for ideals of privacy .

Acceptance of Gay marriage same sex couples gender identity, ect ect ... The entirety of the equal rights amendment, The intolerant must confirm to tolerance. And hence be intolerant to those who intolerant.

So in summation should the government regulate the privacy of the bedroom?.”

That is your original statement and question following this title: 

I take this to mean you are asking this from a philosophical standpoint.  I explained to you that is not what you are arguing.  You are asking, more or less, how to get the folks that do not want to tolerate what you want them to tolerate to do so.  But you are asking this from a legal standpoint.  

There is no need to do this — it is done.  It is legal already. 

The issue you initially said was it is an old philosophy quandary — and it is.  But you left that alone and went to legal issues to ‘force’ people to tolerate something they deem intolerable.  They then are not ‘tolerating’ it from a philosophical standpoint.  They are ‘abiding’ by it because it is the law.  However, since it is intolerable to them — they do not support it, nor do they teach their kids to support it, etc.  

So, there is not a philosophy behind ‘forcing’ someone to abide by what you want them to ‘tolerate’.  

The question is still there on why you do not ‘abide’ by what they want ‘tolerated’?  That is where the logic and philosophy comes into play. 

There is no convincing someone that something is logically or philosophically tolerable when your only argument is:  ‘I want it tolerated and so the majority have made it the law, so you have to honor what we want tolerated.’  It does not work that way.  That is simply ‘majority-rule’ or ‘mob-rule’ or whatever you would like to call it.  

That is not a very convincing philosophical argument to someone that see it as intolerable.  

Hence, why I brought up the moral realism points.  Etc.  Etc.  

So, if you do not want philosophy brought into it and just want to say it should be legal because that is how you ‘feel’ — okay.   That goes back to the emotional aspect of philosophy on these types of issues I brought up.  

If you just want to say it should be legal — ok, it is legal.  

In other words, if you stay with the point of the government should not tell you who you can love and to stay out of the bedroom.  

How do you respond to those that want incest or polygamy allowed?  

Does your ‘philosophy’ still apply?  Or does it only apply to the issues you want ‘tolerated’?

That is where it strays away logically and philosophically.  

Because if you apply the ‘baby-step’ method — what do you think is coming down the road?

Philosophy states that kindness , love good feelings help to preserve a society, anger aggression resentment scourge society, by a social diagram of what is spiritual man and man bound by natural law born eat procreate die. 

The greater good must be achieved, hence intolerant , hate anger at the private actions of others has been debated.

Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson , and John Adams agreed that they should not all be ambassadors in France,

John Adams intolerant nature as a raised Puritan

 with a Law Degree made him unfit for France climate and made him most suitable to The Netherlands and England in time.

However the Three did agree of the forging of this nation and had enough common interests to make them tolerate each other's differences.

We are dealing with changes of tolerance,

So we must go to the extremes of incestual.

Abraham and Sarah his wife were related 2500 bc.

Franklin D .Roosevelt  and his wife were first cousins.

When we have another population  elimination event such as what we have evolved to whether asteroid, or nuclear, a exploding star or what ever star scene in the day sky .if all that left is siblings... Well we get back to here again eventually.....

Polygamy argument is that it is tolerated in most of the world. Muslim countries, some areas in America and Mexico who are Mormon. And in other cultures....

We are not getting away from the privacy issue in ones bedroom. For the record I am in monogamous relationship to the same partner for 5 years... 

But where I personally do not agree with polygamy I feel it must rest the ultimate decision is up to the individual preferences and shouldn't be infringed upon by intrusive government.

Abraham admitted here that Sarah his wife was really his “sister” (cf. Gen. 17:15–16)

She changed her name from saria to Sarah. 

We are debating tolerance and I believe that as conditioned, between consenting adults, that the government should infringe on civil liberties based upon a minority being equal as humans.

The Pharisees and Sadducees had resenting difference between The order of the high priests or priest kings, the Pharisees founded what is the rabbit priest hood. 

These two factions came from the temple of Solomon.

Until the time if Christ in a philosophical debate, 

A small list of the difference between the groups implied there was tolerance for the other sides argument.

For centuries.... 

They held that the daily burnt offerings were to be offered by the high priest at his own expense, whereas the Pharisees contended that they were to be furnished as a national sacrifice at the cost of the Temple treasury into which taxes were paid.
They held that the meal offering belonged to the priest's portion; whereas the Pharisees claimed it for the altar.
They insisted on an especially high degree of purity in those who officiated at the preparation of the ashes of the Red Heifer. The Pharisees, by contrast, opposed such strictness.
They declared that the kindling of the incense in the vessel with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was to take place outside, so that he might be wrapped in smoke while meeting the Shekhinah within, according to Lev. xvi. 2; whereas the Pharisees, denying the high priest the claim of such supernatural vision, insisted that the incense be kindled within.
They opposed the popular festivity of the water libation and the procession preceding it on each night of the Sukkot feast.
They opposed the Pharisaic assertion that the scrolls of the Holy Scriptures have, like any holy vessel, the power to render ritually unclean the hands that touch them.
They opposed the Pharisaic idea of the eruv, the merging of several private precincts into one in order to admit of the carrying of food and vessels from one house to another on the Sabbath.
In dating all civil documents they used the phrase "after the high priest of the Most High," and they opposed the formula introduced by the Pharisees in divorce documents, "According to the law of Moses and Israel."
However there is evidence[2] that there was an internal schism among those called "Sadducees"—some of whom rejected Angels, the soul, and Resurrection—and some which accepted these teachings.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sadducees 

To further define human rights as a achievable goal.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks 

Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

So, you agree that the preferences of folks that want polygamy or incest in the privacy of their bedroom should not be infringed upon by intrusive government?  Whether, you agree with it or not?

Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality 

Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests

With consenting adults.....

Again a qualifier and beyond the fictional point of absolute tolerance.

Not condoning but accepting the human right to have choice to love.

What philosophy is this?  How are the things you want tolerated achieving the greater good?  That goes back to the moral reasoning that can be factual instead of emotional.  You are making it emotional because you want it to be tolerated — not based on facts, but emotions.  That is not a discipline of philosophy that any sophisticated person would argue is valid here.    

I am not asking about examples or cases of this in the past.  

I am not even asking from a procreating standpoint.  

I am asking — based on your stance on same-sex relations (because they are NOT doing it to procreate) — why can the other extreme examples not be tolerated?  Just based on your arguments?  Take procreation out of it, altogether.  

Kindness is more than behavior. The art of kindness means harboring a spirit of helpfulness, as well as being generous and considerate, and doing so without expecting anything in return. Kindness is a quality of being. The act of giving kindness often is simple, free, positive and healthy.

Good for the body
Kindness has been shown to increase self-esteem, empathy and compassion, and improve mood. It can decrease blood pressure and cortisol, a stress hormone, which directly impacts stress levels. People who give of themselves in a balanced way also tend to be healthier and live longer. Kindness can increase your sense of connectivity with others, which can directly impact loneliness, improve low mood and enhance relationships in general. It also can be contagious. Looking for ways to show kindness can give you a focus activity, especially if you tend to be anxious or stressed in some social situations.

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/the-art-of-kindness

Absolutely kindness is good.  You can be kind to someone without agreeing that what they do is tolerable.  It is fine to be kind to a deranged person — you do not have to tolerated their deranged acts, especially if they are the dangerous type of derangement.  You can lock them up and still be kind to them.  

Kindness and toleration are not synonymous.  

Okay.  Just wanted to be clear on your stance.  Anything goes as long as it is two (or more) consenting adults?

Can we accept and expect rights to privacy in our homes? 

The NRA insists on privacy  when buying  an ak 57 and 5000 rounds of it at a gun show.

We expect privacy in phone calls . We tolerate the idea big brother is listening.

We are asking for acceptance as we accept others differences in opinion .

Kindness is greater than politeness and is proceeding to a path of tolerance.