What is abuse? Oh, some of it is clear cut. But a few decades ago, a person arguing that if interracial couples should be allowed to marry then so should homo

What is abuse? Oh, some of it is clear cut. But a few decades ago, a person arguing that if interracial couples should be allowed to marry then so should homosexual couples would have been seen as someone who was against homosexual couples. Just like someone who is pro-polygamy today is seen as being an attack on homosexuals for daring to compare loving homosexuals to the abusive relationships of non-consensual polygamy. (Yes, I clearly worded that last bit in a leading and emotionally charged way, which is to make a point of how people treat it online currently.) Now, you could limit it to only abuse against a single person, like harassment, but to a large extent that is already illegal and I think we are clearly talking about larger ideals that are considered hateful. Consider the argument that if you allow interracial marriage then you should have to allow homosexual marriage. In a culture where the norm is oppression of homosexuals, such a statement can be considered abusive to interracial couples and thus shouldn't be protected. But in our current culture, such a statement is seen as a good and right argument for marriage equality for all (with all being only the politically correct groups of all at this time, adding other groups may constitute abuse to existing groups). Removing anonymity doesn't fix abuse, it just limits it to the socially acceptable abuse.