Gay Rights - Why is this an issue?

[appolose]

The_vagabond7 said:

Quantum mechanics is extremely counter-intuitive where contradiction is both true and real. Something can exist as both particle and wave, which doesn't make sense but is true. A particle can exist everywhere at once, but more so in one place than another. Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time. These things are contradictory and nonsensical but absolutely true and verified by the chair you're sitting in and the screen your looking at. Logic, and reason, are merely descriptions rather than rules and have limits. Ultimately words aren't nearly as important as results. Rationalism falls to Empiricism.

The examples you gave aren't actually contradictory.  There is nothing incompatible about the particle-wave idea, it's just hard to imagine, like another dimension (which isn't illogical).  A particle existing in two places at once defies Newtonina physics, not logic; Why can't a particle exist in two places at once?  It isn't both being and not being, it just defies our normal observations.  Finally Schrodinger's cat has some explanations; there is the multi-world explanation (that is, multiple universes are created, so there are, in effect, 2 cats), another is the cat isn't actually both dead and alive, but is relative to the observer.  Probably more a misunderstanding of the implications of the experiment is the general view on this.  Empiricism must be based upon logic; you have to assume your sense are true before you can use them.

If it is hypocritical to tolerate belief systems other than your own, then I say hypocrisy is a virtue rather than a vice. And isn't something to be shunned...if it yields the desired result. Maybe not by you personally, but by the human race. If consistency leads to something counter to the goal, then consistency is something to be taken with a grain of salt. Pragmatism at work.

That isn't the problem.  One of the positions is false.  It doesn't matter if you have a different goal in mind; you cannot make an argument that is false, because if it is, then it ceases to be an argument.

The problem is your situation of why consistency is necessary in this particular instance holds no water. Saying "don't murder" and at the same time "Don't take away harmless people's rights" isn't going to lead to higher taxes or pedophiles. Your means of achieving consistency by attempting to disprove all other religions and making a single interpretation of the bible as correct leads to a world wide holocaust. So why is consistency preferable in this case to paradox?

That isn't the point; I'm merely discussing whether or not the argument is true; if it isn't, one can still go ahead, but just recognize that one is now what one's accused, or  even less.

Your Obama analogy is an attempt to make one peg fit all holes. If contradiction is bad here, it must be bad in all instances. If consistency would be good in this instance it must always be good.

I was demonstrating that contradiction doesn't work well in the real world, either (that is, supposing my proposed methods are unusable).

Contradiction and paradox are both day to day occurrence and a necessity for the existence of society, life, and apparently the universe.

So, my argument is correct at the same time yours is?  If paradoxes can exist, then why not this one?  You seem to be arguing that "Paradoxes can exist, so your argument is false" would allow for mine to be right.

Edit:  Oh yes, I forgot to mention that quantum mechanics is hardly settled at all, anyways.