[eeeuo]

You provided a specific example of a topic with existential importance. I responded to it.

I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.

If you feel you have an argument about why the government should deny homosexuals the right to marriage, but that does not treat homosexuals as lesser than heterosexual people, I'm all ears!

[rustler]

> I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.

How can I reasonably be expected share my argument, if by your own criteria I'll be guilty of harassment if you disagree?

That's the stifling effect of "disagreement is harassment".

Think about it. By your criteria, discussion can't even happen if anyone's rights are at stake. Yet any meaningful disagreement will involve someone's rights - what is the extent of a right, and under what conditions can it be circumscribed. All of this talk is now off limits.

Maybe you should try to make sure you can win these arguments instead of preemptively banning them.

PS: I'm really not interested in gay marriage. As I said it's just an example of suppressing debate. Compare to how Red evangelicals will invite atheists to publicly debate evolution, which I think is more constructive. I can give more examples of Blue debate-silencing through harassment claims but this seems sufficient illustrative.

[eeeuo]

I encouraged you to make the argument and said "I'm all ears". That hardly seems like preemptively banning your argument.

I am genuinely interested, please indulge us with your argument.

[rustler]

"You can say what you like, but if I don't agree then you've harassed me." You can't have it both ways.

[eeeuo]

I don't think that dissent is harassment.

I think a very narrow segment of speech is harassment, namely that people deserve less because of their religion, race, gender or sexuality. I'm surprised you view this as contentious.

[rustler]

I don't think that's well-defined enough to unilaterally shut down debate. What if my religion tells me I can't work 6 months out of the year, and I need the same job protection Christians get for not working on Christmas and Easter? What if I'm asexual and I'm denied the tax benefits married people get? You're saying not only are these claims automatically granted, but that just discussing them is a punishable offense.

Also why is "religion, race, gender or sexuality" the holy quartet? Why not ageism, ablism, lookism, or my rights as a short person? Why are those open to debate while the others aren't?

[eeeuo]

1. I don't believe that religious people should be treated differently than non-religious people.

2. Asexual people can marry. They don't force you to have sex before they give you the certificate of marriage.

I did not claim that discussing these things was a punishable offense. You can discuss anything that you please, you are protected from prosecution by the 1st Amendment.

My only contention was that it was valid for someone to feel harassed because someone said they deserve less because of their sexuality.