You other me in the name of your religious beliefs to justify the type of legislation that hurts people like me every day. The fact that you can advocate for such legislation openly, without significant reprisal, demonstrates how culturally acceptable it still is to engage in harm against queer folks. People see this and they know that not much will come of it if they engage in their own harmful behavior. So, yes, your behavior exists on the same continuum as the person who called me a “stupid dyke” and threatened to cut my throat. Let’s not forget that your post to Planet is what set this entire chain of events in motion.

Threat of physical power constitutes violence, Gerv, and what you engaged in on Planet Mozilla fits that definition because the legislation you advocated for seeks to leverage the state to continue the subjugation, physical, economic and otherwise, of a class of people.

It causes me pain every time you comment on my blog, Gerv. Every time you issue a compliment, I have to swallow it with the bitter pill of knowing that you find part of me lesser and less deserving of certain rights because I am married to a woman.

So, please, I ask you to stop commenting here on my blog. I don’t wish to have further communication with you, outside of what I am required to have as part of my Mozilla duties.

I’m sure you’re very aware of how powerful words are, and how the people who get to frame a debate have an in-built advantage. You might call it a privilege. You will also be aware of the logical fallacy called “poisoning the well”, whereby you put an idea in terms which the audience will instinctively dislike, and try and get anyone who wishes to defend that position to take that on. Calling support for marriage-as-it-is “legislative violence” and forcing me to accept that label (as you clearly wish to do as a condition of further discussion) puts me in the position of having to defend “violence”, with all the connotations that would have in the mind of a reader – and which are inapplicable here.

I would also suggest that telling me that I’m not interested in having an honest conversation – an ad hominem – is also an attempt to intimidate and silence. After all, it’s not possible to refute such an accusation, and yet how could I continue if I accept it? You will, of course, deny this charge and point to it as further evidence of wrongdoing of some sort on my part.

Your view seems to be that, to have a dialogue with you, I need to have already accepted your worldview and parameters for the debate, including using terms which are loaded in favour of your side. Otherwise, I will face accusations of bad faith. I do not think this is reasonable.

This is not only wrong, it’s completely inverted. Jesus came so we could have life, and have it to the full, and I’m in favour of extending that offer to everyone. I believe in life – from the moment of conception to natural death. (In passing, it is funny how many of those who are against violence towards the vulnerable and underprivileged are fine with it so long as the vulnerable person hasn’t popped out of a womb yet.) I’m a consistent supporter of life, and want everyone to have true life to the full; death threats are antithetical to everything I stand for.

Calling a desire to keep marriage the way it is “legislative violence” diminishes the word violence, just as calling consensual sex between a 17 year old girl and her 18 year old boyfriend “statutory rape” diminishes the word rape, which should be reserved for much more serious crimes. “Legislative violence” is an escalation which is designed to shut down debate, and win by rhetoric rather than by argument. So I am arguing that point with you, and do not believe that this will encourage any lowlife to threaten you beyond whatever sinful desire to do so they already have.

If you were physically threatened with a knife, and I was present, I would not be the guy holding the knife. I’d be the guy standing between him and you.