The major difference is the feelings involved. It's very hard to describe how romantic affection feels different from platonic affection, but it does.
Honestly? Nothing except a lot of pointless suffering. Eugenics isn't just immoral; it literally does not work. The nazis did their damnedest to kill all people with schizophrenia during the Holocaust. Schizophrenia numbers were back up to normal within a couple decades.
See this video (linked to the correct timestamp) for more on why eugenics doesn't actually do anything.
Both are unjustifiable. Governments should never get to decide who's allowed to reproduce.
OP, you're a nazi. I would advise you to [redacted because I'm not sure how much disgust I can express before I risk being banned].
"I have too much to do, so I'm going to take a nap." Galaxy brain logic there, self.
I don't know why you're so willing to die on the hill of invalidating others' relationships.
Right, but there are degrees of abusable. There's a difference between "yes, you could abuse this thing" and "this thing will inevitably be abused." In my opinion, hate speech laws fall into the latter category. I know of too many cases of them being abused... and worse, they don't even seem to do much to prevent hatred. See this article.
Say what you like, but I just can't think of any way to write hate speech laws that isn't incredibly abusable. Handing the government an excuse to punish to people is inherently dangerous. While it's certainly necessary in some instances, I think we should be very, very careful about adding to the list of things you can get thrown in prison for.
You claim these laws aren't a problem, then mention that governments are in fact abusing them literally right now.
There are people whom I met online but transitioned into having an in-person relationship with. My experiences of them online were not inaccurate or even incomplete. Again, fucking skill issue.
I think speech that depicts a real person being abused--e.g CSEM, revenge porn--should be prohibited. Credible threats should also be illegal. Otherwise, I don't think there should be many state-enforced restrictions on speech. I think hate speech laws are a pretty bad idea, because the people in power will inevitably use them against marginalized people. Laws intended to protect the vulnerable can easily be used to oppress them further. We're seeing this with pro-Palestinian groups being labeled hate groups right now in the name of "protecting" people from "antisemitism." (Antisemitism is a real problem, don't get me wrong, but a lot of people who get prosecuted for it haven't actually done anything except support Palestine.)
I do think that communities should enforce their own speech prohibitions, though. For example, social media platforms shouldn't tolerate racism. Even if you think racists have a moral right to spread their racism (they shouldn't), you have to understand that some forms of speech inherently suppress others. If you've got a neo-nazi screaming racial slurs at an event, obviously the people of color there will not feel safe to speak up, and their voices will not be heard. You have to decide whose speech you want to protect.
That is also wrong.