Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Corvino: Don’t let the Perverted Analogy trip up the gay debate
The Gay Moralist is a philosophy professor by day, and today’s column is a logic lesson.
Consider the following two exchanges:
Jack: I can’t support gay marriage because it violates my religion.Jill: Some people’s religions teach that interracial marriage is wrong.
Jack: So, you’re saying that opposing same-sex marriage is just like racism?!
Jill: I should be allowed to marry whomever I love.
Jack: What if you love your brother? Should you be allowed to marry him?
Jill: So, you’re saying that homosexuality is just like incest?!
Exchanges like these have become familiar—so familiar, in fact, that it would be handy to have a name for the fallacy they contain.
Take the first exchange: Jill never said that opposition to marriage equality is “just like” racism. Rather, she used the analogy to interracial marriage as a counterexample to the implied premise that “Whatever a religion teaches is right.” In other words, she seems to be saying that citing religion doesn’t exempt a view from moral scrutiny.
Similarly, in the second exchange, Jack never said that homosexuality is “just like” incest. Rather, he used the analogy as a counterexample to Jill’s premise that people should be allowed to marry anyone they love.
Analogies can be tricky. They compare two things that are similar in some relevant respect. That does not mean that the two things are similar in EVERY respect, or “just like” each other. In both examples above, the second party is misreading the first’s analogy to have far broader implications than intended. This is a fallacy, whether the misreading is deliberate or just careless.
Although people sometimes use the term “fallacy” to denote any false belief, philosophers reserve the term for faulty (but plausible-looking) patterns of reasoning. We give fallacies names to make it easier to spot and avoid these faulty patterns.
As far as I can tell, the specific fallacy described here doesn’t have a name. But it’s common enough to merit one. Some colleagues have suggested “Fallacy of Misreading,” which seems too broad, or “Fallacy of Being a Dumbass” which probably won’t catch on well.
I’d like to propose “Fallacy of Perverted Analogy.” The name captures the central problem: twisting an analogy to mean something broader than intended. In addition, “perverted” suggests something potentially non-consensual—which is appropriate here, since the fallacy is committed not by the originator of the analogy but by a second party. (Beyond that, I relish the thought of accusing certain marriage-equality opponents of perversion.)
It’s worth distinguishing this fallacy from others in the vicinity. This is not the fallacy of “false analogy,” which involves the analogy’s originator comparing two things that are NOT similar in the intended relevant respect.
It’s related to “Straw Man,” insofar as the person committing the fallacy now attacks the bad misreading (i.e. straw version) of the opponent’s argument rather than the actual argument. But it seems that “Perverted Analogy” occurs before “Straw Man.” Moreover, even if “Perverted Analogy” is a subspecies of “Straw Man” it’s specific enough to deserve its own name.
Same with “Red Herring,” which refers to an irrelevant point that throws one off the track of the main argument. That’s surely happening here, but in a precise way worth naming separately.
So, by definition, one commits the Fallacy of Perverted Analogy when one misreads an opponent’s analogy to make a far more sweeping comparison than the opponent needs or intends.
A nice example appeared at Mirror of Justice, a Catholic legal theory blog, last month. In a Christmas Eve post, Michael Perry observed that moral theology must take experiential evidence seriously, even though doing so is often difficult because of visceral reactions to the unfamiliar:
“I fully understand that for many of us this is hard to do – for some of us, impossibly hard: those whose socialization and psychology have bequeathed to them a profound aversion – I am inclined to say, an aesthetic aversion (though, of course, they do not experience it that way) – to unfamiliar modes of human sexuality. (Black bonding sexually with white? Yuk! Female bonding sexually with female? Or male with male? Yuk squared! ….)”
Perry was using aversion to interracial coupling as a familiar historical example of how visceral reactions make it difficult to appreciate the unfamiliar. But Robert George wasted no time in accusing Perry of tarring gay-rights opponents as “the equivalent of racists.” Only by perverting Perry’s analogy could one infer such an equivalence assertion.
There are, no doubt, many other examples of the fallacy—on both sides of the debate. Because I’m eager to name and fight the fallacy, it would be useful to collect these. Readers can post links to their favorite examples in the comments section.
***********
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
He will be debating marriage equality with National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher at Oregon State University on January 21 at 7 pm in Austin Auditorium of the LaSells Stewart Center.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
Hmm, for once I disagree with you, not semantically, but in terms of practicality. Is Jack in your example being a racist? No, he’s discriminating based on something else, but it’s still discrimination, who cares if it’s sexual orientation rather than skin color? He doesn’t get a pass just because he’s a different kind of discriminator.
And is he equating gay marriage with incest? Yes. He’s saying that both are equally worthy of being outlawed, even though he doesn’t think that same-sex marriage IS incest. He obviously thinks that they are the same in abhorrence and immorality.
So I don’t know. Semantics are all well and good, but you can’t parse opposition to same-sex marriage from opposition to homosexuals themselves and have thought the issue through (or if you have and still come to that conclusion, you’re evil). So I guess I’m just being argumentative, but I’ve never been a fan of “well, technically he’s not saying that…”
I prefer “Fallacy of False Analogy” to ‘Perverted analogy”. False analogy = Focus on the individual components of an analogy rather than the connection between the two positions.
Better not to drag yet another trigger-word – “perverted’ – into the discussion of homosexuality.
We have enough fires to put out.
gaywatcj:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
It is rare, but there have been historical bans on interracial marriage in some religious sects. But none that I can find for the major religions. Or in any major religious texts.
I’m slightly disappointed this week with the article. It seemes dry and i kind of had to force feed myself to get it down. It is also possible that I am scatter-brained today too.
@gaywatcj- I assume he meant historicalls, when many churches did outlaw interracial marriages and some even considered african-americans to be “of the devil”
“Perverted Anology” is usually just someone being purposefully obtuse or honestly ignorant.
The honestly ignorant have hope in education. The purposefully obtuse are either trying to toy with you, though in a battle of wits they are usually lightly armed and easily countered.
cont.
or they are trying to be snarky…which is a losing proposition against most gay folks
I don’t think these comparisons are fallacious because people who routinely use them are referring to degrees of revulsion, and are not making factual comparisons. So I think they are appropriate to use and can be useful. When the right makes an outrageous analogy, it is not a fallacy, rather it is an accuracy — detailing an overblown fear or revulsion. And opposition to gay marriage is certainly just like racism because it is rooted only in animus, similar to the wrongness of racial thought. So no, I just don’t agree with this article.
John, your article is interesting, but the problem is anti-gay people don’t hold those beliefs because of some rational, well-thought-out argument. They think gay = sin. God, or a TV preacher told them so. Rational, thinking people support or at least are ambivalent about gay issues. So you can win the debate, but you won’t change their minds.
Arguments against gay marriage:
1 They can’t procreate.
Irrelevant argument because having children (or having the capacity to have them) has never ever been a requirement to get married. Not many people fighting to make it illegal for infertile couples or senior citizens to marry.
2 It’s not ‘natural’.
Complete and total lie proven false by a simple google search. Homosexual behavior appears and has been documented in literally hundreds of animal species, including many that pair-bond for life. What most people actually mean when they go this route is that it isn’t ‘Gods plan’. There no common ground for this argument, because the anti-gays claim that homosexuality is a choice. While the body of evidence, every respected psychiatric group in the country, and almost every gay person you will ever meet all know that it is something you can’t change. The anti-gay side will point to a study funded by some religious organization that says if a single person claims they were gay and aren’t anymore then that is absolute proof that their sexuality can be changed.
They also continue to cling to outdated, antiquated definitions which compounds the problem. They think that if a gay person stops having sex with men that they aren’t gay anymore. This is patently FALSE. If bob is gay and decides to marry a woman and has 2 kids and never touches a man again in his life then he is STILL gay. The point here being that ‘gay’ is an immutable trait, not an action.
3 It will take something away from str8 marriages. Or it takes away the rights of str8 people.
Also sort of a silly argument. There are two sides to this argument too. I read a good article on this not too long ago (might have been Corvino’s). The basic jist is that rights aren’t like poker chips. You don’t give up any of your own chips in order for someone else to gain their rights. In this country, rights are not supposed to be rationed out and some people given more of them then others. In fact the constitution forbids it. Everyone is entitled to the same rights, regardless of who they are. It is the job of the courts to uphold the constitution when the will of the majority crushes a monority group and denies them their rights. Gay rights are not special rights. They are the exact same rights everyone else has, ours just aren’t being respected.
Some fallacies relate to the technical aspects of any assertion, while others are related to its relevancy.
Psychologist’s Fallacy: An observer interprets his subjective analysis as objective.
Negative proof fallacy: If something cannot be proven false, it must be true (there is no gay gene)
Appeal to probability: If something could happen, it will happen (gay parents could abuse their kids)
Appeal to tradition: Traditional morals are inherently right (gay marriage is wrong because straight marriage is the way it’s always been)
Slippery slope: One thing leads to another (gay marriage leads to polygamy)
Tu Quoque: A premise is false because it is stated inconsistently.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Correlation proves causation (gays who were abused are gay because they were abused)
Appeal to Fear: Instilling the audience fear makes a premise true (appeal to consequences)
Spotlight Fallacy: All examples of anything are like the most famous ones (Allen Ginsberg)
Loki’s Wager: Something that cannot be defined cannot be discussed (sexual orientation)
Circular cause: The cause of something is its effect (gay people are more promiscuous than straight people, therefore gay marriage should be illegal)
gaywatch:
“Formani, religious sects are simply people who make up their own doctrine, aside from their religion.”
And that makes them not religions – how?
I believe the very same could be said of Christianity for the first 300+ years of its existence.
Gaywatch 2010 said:
“Second, I would ask Jill to identify one religion that teaches that interracial marriage is wrong, just one.”
Answer JUDAISM and pre 1980’s Protestant CHRISTIANITY (particularly Southern Baptist, but MOST churches of any denomination at some point in history). Many Southern Baptist churches, and others, still, to this day preach against interracial coupling/marriage.
Then gaywatch2010 said:
“This however is not church doctrine, and is not taught in the Tora [sic], Koran, or Holy Bible.”
From the TORAH/BIBLE:
Deuteronomy 7:1-3
1. When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Now you might say that this was a proscription against marrying people of other FAITHS rather than races. I would agree, but I would have to ask, where are the biblically-based constitutional bans on interfaith marriages from those who use the bible to justify bans on same-sex marriages?
You might note that this was a rule of G-d specifically intended for the Jews meant to define them as Jews, differentiate them from the people and behaviors of other tribes and to protect their race. To which I would note that so were the rules and prohibitions of Leviticus to which, for some reason, ALL gay people, Jew and Gentile, are held accountable. I think it only fair that if gay peoples’ goodness and humanity are held accountable to Levitical laws meant to define what makes a Jew a Jew, then it’s only right and fair that ALL peoples’ goodness and humanity be determined by their adherence to those same rules; including dietary rules, slavery rules, sacrifice rules, agricultural rules, sexual rules, marriage rules, genital mutilation rules, modesty rules, cleanliness rules, etc.
I might add that the Baptist Church that I grew up in in Mississippi MOST DEFINITELY taught that it was a sin to marry a person of another race and backed up their teaching with chapter and verse, just as they justified slavery with chapter and verse. If you don’t believe that there was STRONG religiously based objection to interracial marriage then you clearly aren’t familiar with the case of Loving v. Virginia and the arguments made by the defendants in the case, or the arguments of the original judge that found them guilty of a crime.
Hopefully this won’t be seen as a Perverted Analogy.
Gaywatch 2010 you said:
“The difference is, if a religious scripture teaches against inter-racial marriage or homosexuality, the scriptures can not be changed only ignored.”
I wonder about that statement. Is it not the “interpretation” of scripture that is the problem?
The Global Anglican and the Episcopalian church (theoretically the same church) interpret the same Bible in a completely different social light. Neither has changed or ignored scripture. Rather, the leaders of the respective entities have CHOSEN to interpret differently.
It is human choice to discriminate, not the hand of the “Almighty”, if indeed the Almighty anything does exist.
That is the problem with the politics of the US at present. The democracy (what is left of it) is so infused with theocratic principles that it is sinking into a dark whole of inquisition-like interpretations. Look at Uganda.
And no, Gaywatch 2010, I do not believe in “gay issues” because it serves my self interest. I believe in equality because it serves the greater good of all. My belief is not religion driven. It is driven from a sense of decency.
Good points John, except you are puttinng the blame on the ‘hearers’ (or ‘misreaders’) of the ‘arguments’ when it is, in fact, the liars and the haters that are doing the ‘misleading’.
“This is a fallacy, whether the misreading is deliberate or just careless.”
Jill’s response (“Some people’s religions teach that interracial marriage is wrong.”) to Jack’s ‘complaint (“I can’t support gay marriage because it violates my religion.”) was irrelevant (even though some religions DO believe interracial marriage is ‘wrong’).
She should have said, “In America, we have FREEDOM of religion. what you ‘believe’ is – and SHOULD be – irrelevant in a court of law, since obviously, other people ‘believe’ different things.”
Likewise, Jill’s response (“So, you’re saying that homosexuality is just like incest?!”) to Jack’s irrelevant comment (“What if you love your brother? Should you be allowed to marry him?”) entirely misses the point that brothers and sisters don’t HAVE to marry – because they’re already related. Marriage establishes (among other things) kinship. Brothers and sisters already are kin.
The gay community (and our lawyers) have done a shitty job of honing in on what the actual issues in this ‘debate’ are. For way too long, we have let our (very vocal, and usually misinformed) opposition define this issue for us – and they HAVE done it in a fallacious manner (aka the bearing of false witness, aka LIEING!).
Wake up gay America. DO BETTER!
gaywatch,
“Two points, you can be homosexual and oppose same-sex marriage.”
Yeah, r-i-i-i-g-h-t. Just like you can be black and oppose equal rights for blacks, oppose voting rights for blacks, be against blacks serving in the military.
U R nutzoid.
“Second, I would ask Jill to identify one religion that teaches that interracial marriage is wrong, just one.”
Easy one. The Church of the Aryan Nations. Southern Baptists. Mormons. The ‘church’ behind Bob Jones University. Liberty Baptist.
(I know you only asked for one, but if you’re gonna make it that easy…)
“The fact is, we must not make arguments, that are faulty and without reason.”
Wy not? You just did it – TWICE! Besides, it ain’t our side that’s MAKING these false arguments, it’s the anti-gay/anti-equality side that is. Get a clue.