No, but refusing to go to the meeting to make sure it doesn't happen isn't the winning move you think it is. You're just ceding the ground to the enemy without a fight.

If on a governmental level a discussion doesn't even happen, you neither refuse to go to a meeting nor are you ceding any ground.

Having a dogmatic position is a strategy, but you actually have to be in the argument to have that position.

It's not a dogmatic position. It would be dogmatic if you weren't allowed to discuss these topics ever in any venue. I am only of the opinion that they shouldn't ever be considered valid on a governmental level. Because if the government start to discuss these topics it's only a matter of time before the discussion turns into action.

You're free to discuss and debate these topics outside the government. I wouldn't ever dare to forbid anyone to speak about anything as that would go against freedom of speech and make me a serious hypocrite

You can refuse to pay 15k for a used car, but unless you are face to face with the dealer and negotiating from that position, you're just not walking into the dealership and he doesn't know you exist.

The analogy doesn't fit. If a dealership has an outrageous initial asking price for a used car I'll never even step foot into that dealership. I will not consider doing business with an obvious crook.