[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.

[rustler]

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

Ok. I agree people's feelings are valid. I believe if someone feels harassed because of my opinion, my opinions may be just as valid as their feeling of harassment, and society is better served by open discussion than sparing feelings at all costs.

I realize that some people may abuse this to hurt other's feelings without making a sincere and salient point, which is regrettable. I'd like to think all my points can be articulated without offending anyone, though that's probably unrealistic.

I appreciate that you respect the 1st Amendment. It's a common Blue trope that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to speech involving supposed racism or sexism (which they refer to as "hate speech").

[eeeuo]

I'm all for open discussion. I'll discuss anything with anyone.

I was just responding in particular to the point about gay marriage because I think, as I said, by definition it's difficult to make that argument without a premise that you deserve more than the other side. Similarly, if you made the argument that someone does not deserve to vote because they use a wheelchair, I would think the same thing.

Perhaps in some Voltaire-ideal we should have an in-depth argument on the merits, but I don't particularly blame them for just saying "fuck this". It's not exactly a good faith argument that's conductive to a useful or productive conversation.

To use your parental leave example, contrast two arguments. One begins from "I think that both the mother and father deserve equal treatment" versus "Women are sinful, therefore they deserve fewer days off". You may earnestly believe both arguments and be attempting to make a reasoned, good faith argument, but one of them is more likely to result in "fuck this" and one of them is more likely to result in a useful discussion.

With regards to your point about a "common trope", you should consider talking to adults on the Left.

E: We've now reached the post column width that indicates that we both should have better things to do.

[rustler]

Unfortunately it's the young generation I'm worried about. 4 in 10 undergrads mistakenly believe "hate speech" is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-sho...

You're free to say "Fuck this, I don't want to argue anymore" if you like. The mistake is believing that makes anyone still talking a "harrasser" in the legally actionable sense.