>At what point does believing that someone should be stripped of their rights become or manifest violence? At what point does trying to spread that idea that someone should be stripped of their rights until there is wide consent for actually stripping someone of their rights become violence?

>At what point does "gay people are an abomination" go from opinion to violence? At what point should it be addressed? When should the speech be responded to with force

Quite simply it, ideas becomes violence when the violence occurs. Disagreeable opinions should be addressed at points, but the tools and responses should differ based on the point in time. Force is an appropriate response to immediate violence, but you should be aware that by refusing to talk or engage you are closing the door on compromise or changing minds, and matters will now be settled on the basis of superior force or power, opposed to collaboration.

>I would assert that hearing speech like that means it is, at minimum, time to arm oneself with the tools of violence.

I think that is fair. I think most people should be prepared to defend themselves violently if needed. I would not willingly be harmed or be incarcerated when I feel I have done no wrong, and don't think others should either.

>My central thesis is this: Intolerance acts as a selective force against replication of memes (the technical word, not the colloquial one). There should be a cost for saying "gays are an abomination."

This line of thought assumes that negative memes outcompete positive ones, and costs are required to control them.
The question becomes when can costs be imposed, and what are appropriate costs. There is a clear line between withdrawing your support, and interfering with others. That is to say, it is one thing to refuse to talk or support someone who says "gays are an abomination", but another to actively prevent them talking with a willing 3rd party. It is one thing to abandon a friend who says it, and another thing to punch your friend.

>My understanding of your statement is that you read it as a justification for violence. I believe what I quoted is an indictment of pacifism.

What is the difference? If you condemn pacifism, you are left with violence.

>I guess my main question to you is when is violence (the use of force rather than consensus) acceptable and when does it become acceptable?
Here are several situations I think an analysis of would provide insight into the distinction between words, violence, and power structures: civil war/slavery, revolutionary war, the war in Ukraine.

The short answer is that violence is acceptable when you are willing to fight and die over the dispute. By taking violent action, you are agreeing to be subject to violent rules of engagement. Maybe you are already subject to violence, and the other party has defected from pacifism so you don't care, but in other cases the decision may be more difficult.

If you have a verbal debate over if "gays are an abomination" and escalate to violence, the other party has a right to defend themselves no matter if you are right or wrong on the verbal topic. The central question when leaving the realm of dialog is if "the juice is worth the squeeze".