Logic Problem

[DoubleTime]

So this has been driving me nuts, and I thought that the helpful community of the escapist might be able to lend a hand.

There's an argument that seems to be getting more popular, or at least I'm hearing it more from the anti-gay groups, that says that the law is fair for gays because straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.

The argument goes like this:
Gay people CAN get married as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. This is fair because straight people cannot marry people of the same sex either.

If you can stand watching, here's a video of Ann Coulter making the argument, followed by a page with a clip of Bachman making it.

Warning! These videos may induce "WTF?!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtJnLyamOLI
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01/gotta-watch-kids-1-politicians-0/?iref=allsearch

I'm pretty certain this is a logical fallacy because it can be reversed, I'm just not certain what it's called. If the position was changed, i.e. marriage was defined as two people of the same sex, it would go thus:
Straight people CAN get married as long as it is to someone of the same sex. This is fair because gay people cannot marry people of the opposite sex either.

I could be wrong and this is not a logical fallacy, but in that case I want to know what logical argument it is.

Wiki page on fallacies for ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[Handbag1992]

Not sure if it's a logical fallacy, but it's the single most stupid argument I've heard against gay marriage since "gays can't have children".

Now excuse me while I weep for mankind.

 

[Lukeje]

The statement as such is not really a fallacy. The fallacy lies in the fact that such a statement has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.

 

[GamerKT]

They're both correct and dumb. I thought of this before, too. Gay people CAN get married. Duh. Technically, a gay woman and a gay man can marry each other. Gay marriage.

Their problem is with the usage. WE MEAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, YOU IDIOTS.

Edit: Ann Coulter is an idiot.

 

[isometry]

The fallacy is equivocation, misleading use of a term that has more than one meaning.

When Ann says "gay people can get married", the word "married" doesn't have the same meaning as when gay people say "we want to get married."

 

[Logiclul]

I agree that it is an issue of equivocation, but rather on the word "can". She uses 'can' in the former segment, and 'cannot' in the latter. Cannot is read as unable, whereas can is read as (1of) possibilities ranging P.

Anns' argument is that the law says that gay marriage is illegal, therefore gay marriage should be illegal; which is a logical fallacy because the premise assumes the conclusion.

edit: See:Appeal to Tradition for another error in Ann's words http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

 

[jimahaff]

Not sure if logical fallacy, or just stupid; but I'm going to go with stupid.

If person A wants an apple and person B wants an orange it's not fare to give them both apples. That is showing a clear preference to the wishes of A. B doesn't want an apple, they want an Orange. It doesn't matter that A also doesn't get an orange because A didn't want an orange to begin with.

It isn't about the object, it is about getting what you want. The only fair thing is to either give A their apple and B their orange, or to not give either of them anything.It isn't that her (ann coulter or something like that) logic is off, she is just missing the point.

Hope this helps and if you are looking for the hidden message about gay people being oranges and straight people being apples then you have issues.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

.....Maybe if I close my eyes and wish REAAALLY REAAAAALLY hard, these idiots will just...go away...

...........They haven't yet, have they? That is the single stupidest argument I've ever heard, aside from.....From.......Dammit, I can't think of any at the moment.

That's like saying "See? It's perfectly FAIR that non-vegans aren't allowed too eat meat! I mean, Vegans aren't allowed meat either! Totally fair!".

Spoiler: Picture totally relevant

 

[Logiclul]

Talked to a friend of mine who is somewhat versed in formal logic, and he says it is an issue of division of a set. He rewrote the argument like this:

Set of all people P
P(g) = gays
P(s) = straight
It is the most good and the most fair to allow P(s) to marry members of the opposite sex and only members of the opposite sex. Therefore, it is the most good and the most fair to allow all things P to marry members of the opposite sex and only members of the opposite sex.

This is a fallacy because what is true for a part is not necessarily true for the whole.

 

[Logiclul]

This is why I hate those people who can only use superformallogic and call anything that doesn't fit it illogical and wrong.

I can clear up any argument I've made in laymens terms for you if you have an issue with formal logic, just point out which parts you don't like.

 

[maninahat]

Good lord that is a poisonous woman. She is perhaps the most condescending, self-satisfied, arrogant, judgemental and stupid person I've ever seen.

 

[Saltyk]

I once heard of a couple of straight men that got married to each other, in an area that same sex marriage was legal of course (I think it was in Canada). Why would they do this? Tax breaks. Neither man every planned to get married, but they found the tax breaks too enticing. So they married each other. Most awesome abuse of a loophole ever. Kind of fits the same thought process. No one said married couples had to be attracted to each other or have sex.

But I think this is a false argument. Why gay people can get married. They just have to get married to people of the opposite sex that they have no attraction to whatsoever. That's not what marriage symbolizes. Marriage isn't meant as a tax break or some stupid legal union. It is supposed to be two people who care about and love each other.

So why the argument might be logical and even true, it doesn't address the actual issue.

 

[Logiclul]

This is why I hate those people who can only use superformallogic and call anything that doesn't fit it illogical and wrong.

I can clear up any argument I've made in laymens terms for you if you have an issue with formal logic, just point out which parts you don't like.

Well, my biggest problem with people who use superformal logic is that they do not understand it themselves. They just get lost in their own argument and shit gets twisted and looses all touch with reality.

Big fan of logic, not a big fan of people getting lost in highly formal logic.

Logic is a tool, not an end in itself.

Well there are no flaws in what I said, as far as I can see. Either you find my points to be twisted and wrong, or you shouldn't seem to have any qualms with logic in this thread. I think your generalization about those who use formal logic is wrong and a silly thing to say.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I see no problem with this.

Seriously though, anti-gay marriage stances aren't really based on logic so I don't see the point in putting any weight behind their attempt to create logical reasons, I really doubt they believe what they're saying themselves.

They're clutching at straws at this point.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

so basically, the solution to gay marriage is bisexuality and heteromance?

plus, she goes on about how we need a mother and father for the child. what child? who says all gay people, or even all straight people, want kids?