I didn’t hear a single person argue that peace, as in a state of no war, isn’t a good thing. Some argued it should be a goal and not a value, and some argued that we should use a different word because of what that word actually means/how it’s used. Let’s not straw-man the arguments - lots of good points were brought up here on both sides 
Meagan, much respect for your lived experience with how peace could be interpreted to mean suppression of conflict, and that it could mean that someone claims to want peace so they want you to keep your pain to yourself. I hear you and acknowledge that these are real experiences/emotions. I’m sorry if in some way I suggested that I did not.
What I’m having trouble understanding is how one could impute such meaning or intent from the use of Peace here — from the wording of the amendment, from the rationale stated in detail, or from the context of the other UU values of Equity, Pluralism, and Justice. I’m having trouble understanding how or why we would think Peace could actually be invoked at the expense or exclusion of equity, justice and pluralism — because that is not really peace?
Silencing people or using force to suppress conflict, which you highlighted as a concern, is a real concern for you and, I understand, something that lives in your experience. And, to use this concern as an argument against — “We covenant to promote a peaceful world community with liberty and human rights for all. Whenever and wherever possible we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace” — is what feels like a straw-person stance to me, or a deep misunderstanding/misreading.
For additional perspective: I have a concern about Generosity as a value. Generosity is a worthy aspiration, but I have seen how it can be weaponized by elite UUs against those of lesser means who are not wealthy and with advanced degrees. If everyone is expected “to give freely of their resources,” this could lead to those who are less wealthy being exploited or made outcasts if they can’t. I now this is a real experience that some people have had. Not everyone is always able to be generous and give freely.
This makes me think that if we are in danger of these values, and perhaps others, being weaponized because they will be understood out of context with UU values and without compassion and empathy, then we should vote down this new framework altogether because it does not serve our movement well.
Frances, yes, let us not straw-man arguments.
The Peace amendment stated: “We dedicate ourselves to peaceful conflict resolution at all levels. We covenant to promote a peaceful world community with liberty and human rights for all. Whenever and wherever possible we will support nonviolent means to achieve peace.” And this would have been added to a document that also says: “We will create and nurture sustainable relationships of care and respect, mutuality and justice.” And " We covenant to dismantle racism and all forms of systemic oppression." And “We work to be diverse multicultural Beloved Communities where all thrive.”
Opposition to the Peace amendment on the grounds that it could/would be used to silence people unfairly or inequitably seems to be in stark contrast to the spirit and the letter of both the amendment and the overall A2 document, an an attempt to impute bad faith, so that’s what feels to me like a straw-person argument.
However, while it feels that way to me, I believe that all have good intentions and are acting in good faith, so I’m sorry there is such a disconnect in our discourse.