CIVIL DISCOURSE

Is there such a thing as civil discourse?  I participated in a recent Facebook conversation--we'll call it a spirited debate--about the pros and cons of circumcision.  The inevitable comparison to what's euphemistically called "female circomcision" came up from some of the female participants.  Total non-starter. It ain't the same thing, folks.  Not even close.  It just affects the same general area of the anatomy.
Things really heated up with the "totally dispassionate and rational" guy, who did lots of research and included links to same in his postings.  But, he also included references to some of us being "emotional, reactionary, obsessive", etc., etc.  Got kinda' personal.  My daughter, in her ebullient self-expression, called him Stumpy and poked him a little.  I have found the best way to reveal a self-styled "rationalist" is to laugh at him a bit.  Humans are emotional beings, with rational moments.  Except, perhaps, people who are diagnosed with autism, which is considered a disorder, and not "normal".  Of course, Stumpy got huffy and offensive, while claiming to be cool and rational.  My first posting on the subject was after many others had weighed in and was about my perspective on circumcision, being a mother with 3 sons, having 5 brothers, all circumcised, one not in infancy.  And, I am a "feminist" in patriarchal, Old Testament (redundant?) Utah.
When Stumpy got insulting to me I responded by telling him that I had given him the benefit of the doubt because he was an acquaintance of someone dear to me, but now suspected that he was really just a dick, albeit a kosher one.  After letting us know what he thought of us he deleted all his many entries in the comment thread.  Were either of us "right"?  Any of us?  Probably not, except maybe my friend who had opened the discussion.  She is mother of a daughter, thinks she might have a son, is a good, kind person who hates to offend anyone (unlike my daughter and me, who really do have a mouth on us).
Currently, circumcision is a hot-button issue.  No pun intended.  There are lots of such issues raging right now:  the economy, immigration, the role of religion in government, etc.  Everybody gets polarized.  Well, maybe not everybody, but seems that way.  I get to hear Rush Limbaugh rant for 3 hors a day because I am living with my 93 yr old mother who listens to him religiously.   At very hight decibel.  Polarizing?  You betcha'.  "I'm right, therefore you're wrong, wrong, wrong.  And a socialist, arnachist, Nazi, Muslim, Communist, Anti-American.  Christ died for me, not for you, you piece of -----.  Christ only died for the RIGHTEOUS, ie., everybody who agrees with me."  Admittedly, I call him Douche Limpbag and think he isn't actually human (Pod People?  Reptilian?)  because he is waaay too evil.  But.  I am willing to admit that maybe God, in all God's wisdom, loves him, too. And, Limpbag is by no means unique.  So.  the challenge is, or the point (finally) is:  how can I/we be civil to the uncivil?  And (here is the real challenge), still live conscious, responsible lives?   Think Hitler and pre-WW II Germany here.  How do we, as humans, let people be whatever they choose to be, but not let them cause us, or the world, harm?  A "civil" society has to allow for the possibility of the choice of evil (assuming that you believe there is such a thing as evil, but that is another discussion).  And how do we establish boundaries, limits to it, while at the same time allowing for free expression?  What was God thinking when God created humans with free will....
Thoughts?