But also in a real-world situation, consitency holds some water, too.  Suppose Obama, after having said,  "I will not raise the taxes of the middle class", then does it, that inconsistency would be a problem, would it not?  It's not just linguistic gymnastics; it's position, something we all must have and hold.

"You say '"Either forcing morality is wrong, or forcing a ban on murder is wrong. You can't have it both ways."', actually you can, look outside your window. It exists as both. The reason is pragmatism. Forcing a ban on murder is self preservation that allows liberty and protection".

Liberty except for the murderers, of course.  And how does that mean both can be sustained?  So it keeps people alive; does that make it uncontradictable?  The point is, one is true and one is false.  Sure, you can do both at the same time, but you must realize one is false. 

Quatnum mechanics is not illogical; it just defies Newtonian physics, which is not logic incarnate.  Say, for example, in some circumstances a "particle" can appear out of nowhere, according to quantum mechanics.  That isn't illogical; why can't one just appear?  We've jut never yet observed it.  And while I'm certainly no expert on quantum mechanics, I would think quite a bit of math is used to derive principles of the theory, which is, of course, a logical process.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

Perhaps there's been a miscommunication. My original goal was to demonstrate that banning homosexuality and banning murder are equally imposing morality. Thus, the assertion that one shouldn't impose morality would contradict the assertion of the immorality of murder. Therefore, if one wanted to go ahead and be inconsistent, it must be realized he's just as guilty of breaking the "no imposing" morality as is the anti-gay. This was my intent, to either get the imposing-morality argument dropped, or to accept one is just as guilty of imposing.

I have no contention with the group that claims both murder and all other religions are wrong (at the moment), for I was attacking an inconsistency, which is not present in this latter situation.

Finally (and off-topic), I might try this argument against all other religions: If I can prove Christianity is right, then all other religions are wrong, according to Christianity (which I just proved right (in this hypothetical situation)).
But that's a different matter.

My goal was in essence to show that (a) that logical contradiction can sometimes lead to illogical real life results, and thusly in some instances should be ignored. and (b) within the objectively moral construct of "liberty and and protection of the harmless for all" there is no inherent contradiction.

Then it is that it is. But it was a fine and enjoyable conversation. Gave me something to ponder and discuss for a couple evenings.

As for your off topic part, I'm pretty sure that's the goal of most every organized religion, so I think you're going to have some competition. Good luck with that. :)

Yeah, it could be tricky :)
Thanks!

I think gay marriage is perfectly fine and find it saddening when people discriminate against them. My brother is gay, I knew this since I was younger and he really didn't seem all too different from the other guys we would hang out with.

What would one do if they had this great friend at work for years and they would do so much shit together, then one day he tells you he is gay. Would they really start disliking the guy?

Thanks for defending me without me having to type any vagabond!

Essentially, we are saying you can't win the argument on a linguistical loophole, appolose. If you think that is a sound basis for saying that imposing one objective morality (which does not allow outsiders to influence that morality) is better than another objective morality (which allows everyone to influence what that morality is), then I am a little worried about you.  Imposing something on people has everything to do with whether or not they can have a voice in what is being imposed on them is.  That is what a system of government is, government by the people for the people.

Frankly, you aren't convincing anyone but yourself with your argument anymore. That's not an effective argument. Sure you can say that it is logically correct, but arguing to support a moral ethos is an inherently illogical practice to begin with, because morality is not logical. Trying to win an argument that has from the outset stepped outside the bounds of logic per se by imposing logical rules is a self-defeating practice, and will just as equally defeat your argument. You can't say, "Both are arguments are defeated, so I win."

I am suggesting a social system which allows everyone to influence the dominant objective morality and to change it as they see fit. What you are advocating is social system in which a large percentage of the population cannot influence that objective morality because they are outsiders. This has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with this country's social ethos. The decision is based on an ideology which this country has adhered to since it was founded, democracy.

I thought I had escaped!  :)

So you can advocate not imposing morailty and impose morality at the same time?  "Linguistic loophole" or not, that a pretty tough thing to do.  You're going to have to show how the morality that you impose is somehow the exception to the rule, which you haven't yet, thereby leaving me to wonder why you're being selective about this; that is, why murder and not homosexuality.

There is nothing illogical about a moral ethos.  If you decide that stealing is wrong, then this idea of stealing is either something you've assumed (which hardly is contradictory), or it's something you've derived from another principle you hold.  It's perfectly logical.

I've not argued against democracy at all, and, to be honest, I'm not all together sure why you're bringing it up.  I was disussing soley whether or not the position "You can't impose morality" is tenable.  I have no problem with  a majority decision; where's the contradiction in that?  However, you seem to have the problem; you oppose the anti-homosexual marriage advocates for being bigoted when the morality in a democracy is simply decided by the majority, which, if it did vote to ban gay marriage, then you should have no problem with that (unless you feel I'm exploiting another linguistic loophole).