Then I think our goals in the debate are different. Several pages ago when I said
"It leads to a sort of reductio ad absurdum in the same way being anti-bigot does (being prejudiced against all prejudiced people). However a certain common sense kicks in when you believe in something like anti-bigotry even if it is a bizarre circular self damning concept. If the belief is "Liberty and protection for all" then that doesn't mean "Let's throw in pedophiles and goat sodomy too!" even though the reductio ad absurdum may lead to that end. The argument for gay marriage isn't an argument against moral objectivity as you seem to propose. It's an argument in favor of a different kind of objective morality that you personally don't ascribe too."
and you replied
"Perhaps, but I feel the contradiction is too strong a one to be ignored. " I assumed it was because you felt there was actual implication of said contradiction.But if you don't think that there is negative impact to the contradiction, then we are in agreement.
Except for the part "but just recognize that one is now what one's accused, or even less." Which I still take some part with. If one has an objective morality that states "murder is wrong" and at the same time "taking away the liberties of the innocent is also wrong" then I don't think they are any worse than you who says "murder is wrong" and at the same time "every other religion is wrong", when a large section of people of every other religion are saying "murder is wrong" and also "every other religion is wrong". Until you can definitively prove that Judaism, Islam, wicca, Mormonism, hinduism, Buddhism, shintoism, taoism, and every other religion is wrong, (and there would be some people very interested in hearing you out if you could) than all three of you are in the same boat. That is to say, having conflicting moral objectivity. None of which definitive.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
