That conversation with TP toilet Paper is typical.
After awhile, they run/recycle the same argumentation (pseudo-statistical, accusatory) & ultimately end up at ad hominem attack (me, my God, or, LOL, my mother).
If I state facts, they'll say
"Oh, you know so much about it, you must be homosexual." Or
"There haven't been any negative side effects/reported incidents/examples of abuse, so all this is merely a diversion." OR
"That's not very Christian of you",
"Christians aren't supposed to judge", etc. blah-blah-blah. Before entering a confrontation, I could write down the top ten responses on a post-it note & be 99% accurate as to their reactions.
The mode I'm in @ the moment (and am generally only a 1/2 step from ever assuming) is direct, frontal assault on their lifestyle/point of view - piss them off with what I know they'll consider
"outrageous": such as quoting suicide statistics or the negative effects of anal cancer and/or the final stages of AIDS. Not loving I know...but these militants aren't the ones we're supposed to love (unless
love 'em, then kill 'em fits someone's paradigm).
Jesus did
not say to love those who seek to kill, maim, assault, rape or pervert your culture and/or family - self, family AND cultural defense are valid, necessary & required.
And, when they accuse me of saying
"bad" or
"nasty" things...I merely ask them for the metric or
ontological reference point for the accusation. Devoid of such an objective frame of reference, they can only resort to pragmatism; their worldview (of which they're ignorant) does not contain the metrics of good & evil or right & wrong. To do that they must smuggle in the Judeo/Christian Worldview...and reminding them of that produces better results/reactions that using the word
"a$$hole".