While in Half-Price Books, a sociology text book caught my eye. You can tell I miss being on the other side of a desk (I’m a teacher by profession, but it gets tiring teaching the same thing year after year), that I’m studying every science textbook I can get my hands on. Social Problems and the Quality of Life by Robert and Jeanette Lauer was printed in 2006, which means it’s still fairly relevant to today’s social issues and discusses a topic that’s of great interest to me right now: the study of issues facing society and how to best solve them. The first chapter addresses the 9 fallacies that muddy the waters of political discourse and challenges the reader to craft arguments that fit the mold of these 9 fallacies (by practicing how to deliberately craft these types of arguments, I become more adept at spotting these fallacies in blogs and conversations). I went one step farther, which is the topic of today’s diary. First, I will acquaint you with the 9 major fallacies (going into less detail for the sake of brevity). Then I will share uncrafted, actual arguments I have seen or heard that fit each fallacy on the topic of banning gay marriage.
In order to spot the 9 different fallacies commonly employed in political discourse, you first must be introduced to them. Below are the names provided for each fallacy with a brief description of what they are (from pages 14-22).
The Fallacy of Dramatic Instance- the use of overgeneralization. Using two or three cases to support an argument for a large group. Usually takes the form of personal anecdotes.
The Fallacy of Retrospective Determinism- the argument that things could not have gone any other way than they did, such as assuming that there have always been poor people, so there is no way to end poverty. Also, falsely assuming that B must happen if A happens.
The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness- attempting to make an abstract too concrete. For example, blaming the abstract concept of “society” for poverty so that individual responsibility can be ignored.
The Fallacy of Personal Attack- (also referred to as ad hominem) Attacking the arguer or the victim for a problem to avoid using reason, consideration or evidence to support an argument.
The Fallacy of Appeal to Prejudice- (also referred to as ad populum) Using terminology to deliberately bias or use of popular slogans and myths to appeal to emotion rather than reason, such as using terms like “socialized” or “power hungry”.
The Fallacy of Circular Reasoning- Using conclusions to support assumptions that were necessary to make that conclusion. This is a tricky one. For example, a person may argue that African Americans are poor because they spend much of their working time in jail for stealing. I might argue that a person might steal because they are too poor to afford the necessaries they need to survive. No, the person might reply, they steal because they are too lazy to work and prefer the “three hots and a cot” they get in jail. The argument makes a meaningless loop.
The Fallacy of Authority- making an illegitimate appeal to authority. The appeal can be illegitimate because the authority may be open to interpretation (such as the bible), irrelevant to the problem (such as asking a meteorologist to discuss global climate change), biased, have a vested interest in an outcome, or flat out wrong.
The Fallacy of Composition- assuming that if the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, then what is true for the whole must be true for all its parts too. A car has four wheels, but not all 4-wheeled vehicles are cars (trucks, skateboards and some office chairs have 4 wheels too). Likewise, what might work for one individual doesn’t always work for all individuals and may even be counterproductive in some cases.
The Fallacy of Non-Sequiter- the misinterpretation of statistical data. A textbook example of this: murder rates increase at the same time ice cream sales increase. Does this mean that ice cream consumption causes increased tendencies to murder? No, it just indicates that as temperatures in an area rise, so do murders (coincidentally, so do the sales of ice cream).
Now that you know the basics of the 9 fallacies, I tacked the topic of opposition to gay marriage as an example of how these fallacies are used in every day discourse. Each fallacy reported has been a comment I have seen or heard, either in conversation with conservative family members or on blogs (in many cases here, debunked on the blog indicated). Where possible, I will provide a direct link as close to the direct source as I can. I also apologize for any incorrect sourcing. I am primarily a science teacher, and I'm still learning this internet thing.
"Marriage Should Be Defined as 'Between One Man and One Woman'":
Dramatic Instance- “There are lots of men and women who once identified as 'gay' or 'lesbian' who left the lifestyle and are living contented and fulfilled lives in their post-homosexual identities. My friend Yvette Cantu Schneider just celebrated her ninth anniversary — Yvette was once a proud lesbian but now is happily married to husband Paul, and they are the parents of two beautiful children.” (From Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality). One anecdote of changing sexual orientation doesn’t prove the norm.
Retrospective Determinism- "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth." (quote from James Dobson, via Wikipedia.). Though I doubt gay marriage will destroy marriage, it's obviously false, not to mention overly-dramatic, to assume that gay marriage will do any damage to Earth.
Misplaced Concreteness- "The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top -- but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years." (James Dobson, via AFAOnline) Technically, the institution of marriage is fairly open to interpretation, as polygamy is no longer allowed yet was fairly common thousands of years ago.
Personal Attack- Rick Warren comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, polygamy and incest (debunked by goodasyou.org, via Technorati)
Appeal to Prejudice- Jeffrey Kuhner: “It is not just that most gays and lesbians are casually promiscuous, and that ritualized sodomy is profoundly unhealthy.” (Washington Post, debunked via pandagon). What the hell is ritualized sodomy anyway? This is meant to evoke a negative emotional reaction to the word “sodomy”.
Circular Reasoning- (this was an already-suggested example from Social Problems and Quality of Life. Sadly, it was painfully easy to find a direct quote) “They are in- you –face everywhere today – these homosexuals who are constantly trying to cover the reality of their sordid lifestyles – so they prey on the ignorance of the average person.” (mynameisjoecortina). Myself, I would argue that gays hide their lifestyles not because they believe it to be sordid, but that others do and persecute them for it. Hence, the circular and senseless nature of the argument.
Authority- Old Testament Vs New Testament (The View clip via Youtube.com). Since the bible is largely open to interpretation (and the Old and New Testament often contradict each other), it makes a pretty ambiguous authority to base an argument on.
Non-Sequiter- “The number of same-sex couples in the U.S. has quadrupled since 1990.” (Debunked at Independent Gay Forum). The statistic is misleading in that it indicates a sudden explosion of homosexuality. In reality, as gay couples feel more comfortable mentioning their relationships, the number of reported couples has increased.
Please let me know if you find more examples in the comments. I’m looking to add to my modest list! Also, be sure to visit my blog, crassroom management