I agree so long as it is a reasonable discussion, and by reasonable, I do not mean "morally correct," "widely accepted," or anything of the sort. If someone were to expect me to have a civil discussion while simultaneously hurling insults at my face and not actually discussing anything, I would likely be upset, but I see no point in wasting time in a debate over why the insults are not true. However, if someone wanted to debate why women are inferior to men, for example, and engaged in civility themselves, I would be glad to present a civil argument against them. Point being, having a mutually respectful argument with someone that is not respectful is quite impossible. Though I doubt the OP was suggesting as much.

To pick and choose who you are civil with based on their "moral framework," is quite arbitrary and self-absorbed. Who are you to assume what they believe unless they have specifically said so? I often see people make claims that someone is sexist, racist, bigoted, etc when they have not stated hate or desire to eliminate rights for any such group. Simply having an opinion on something like immigration could make someone a racist in another's eyes. It doesn't matter what the opinion is; the controversial nature of the topic has become grounds for assumption and name-calling, even violence. Simply being friendly to someone with an opinion on a controversial topic or agreeing with them on an entirely separate issue (one that is by no means controversial) has become grounds for similar assumptions and actions. Many people do not read political platforms, watch/read the news (multiple sources), identify with a group that they agree 100%, etc. and yet many people claim to know exactly what others think and believe. How could you possibly know without opening your mind and having a civil discussion?