Inconsistencies run wild in today's culture war. Tolerance and acceptance are championed but usually at the cost of telling others with equally strong convictions they are wrong and should not be tolerated or accepted. It happens all the time.
For example, a popular rock band, fronted by a man who claims to be a Mormon is hosting a concert in Salt Lake with the intention of uniting the LGBTQ young community with the Mormon church. In a recent news story, he said this about the event:
"My only hope is that we learn to love and give total acceptance to our gay youth. And total acceptance means, that when they ask, 'Hey, does God see me as sinful or dirty,' the only answer is 'absolutely not.'"
While the musician's comments are wildly popular today, they are not consistent with accepting different people for their various convictions. He might have been more honest had he just said something like, "It's my only hope to change the convictions of the Mormons for the sake of the convictions of the LGBTQ community."
Mormons and Christians see the Bible differently. (We have our various convictions.) For that reason, I can't speak for the Mormon view. But I can say that the Bible says that all people are sinful, that is, all have sinned and have fallen short of God's standard. (See Romans 3:23, for example.) The same is as true for the LGBTQ community as for any other community.
In fact, this is the very reason for Jesus rescue plan! Saying someone is not sinful is saying the Bible is not true and that Jesus is not necessary, which is precisely opposite of many people's religious convictions.
Many people have a stronger love for Jesus than any human being. They can't control it. It is the desire of their heart.
If the argument is that people should be able to love anybody they want, then Jesus should be included, right? And that means a person who loves Jesus lives by a particular lifestyle. A consistent argument should consist of tolerance for this lifestyle, but that's just not the case.
Please note, the issue here is not about the first part of the musician's statement, but the latter part. The musician is dictating that every person have a specific religious opinion derived from the rock star rather than the Bible. His statement says there's something wrong with stating any other answer to the question, "Does God see me as sinful or dirty?" So he's not offering total acceptance to any religious view other than his own.
There is a way that statements like the one quoted above about tolerance and acceptance can be consistent, but we have to get honest. If we are okay to qualify our tolerance statements, then we remain consistent. If we define tolerance as any view in agreement with the speaker's view, then we are, by definition, always consistent. However, this is not the definition of the word tolerance, but this is the way it's used in the culture wars. It makes it okay championing tolerance by being intolerant of people one thinks are intolerant. The better option might be to get honest with our desires. It would go a long way merely saying, "I don't agree with the Bible" but then not dictating those convictions upon those who do.