[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.