Logical Fallacies to spur Public Outcries...

So I would like to state from the onset the following:

• I do not support these congressmen and politicians in their crusade against gay marriage.
• I do support gay marriage as legalized by legislative action. (1 and other posts in prep).
• I do not think that logical fallacies should be used in politics regardless of the outcome.
• I do not think that gay marriage would undermine traditional marriage and traditional families more than the current rot of marriage from the inside (abusive parents, single parent families, etc.) Studies show that having two parents (even if they are the same gender) is better than single parent families. (References: Wikipedia, Scholarly, if you have better references please post them.)
  

I think those points are important because in this posting I will be attacking a trailer/video which I ran across the trailer for. Here is a link to the movie "Outrage".



First (entirely from the implications of the content in the trailer) : I agree it is abhorred that congressman persecute gay couples and deny t hem benefits. The federal government should not be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do in the bedroom (nor should the state). If the government does want to step in to 'think of the children' then they should do it in constructive and scientifically aware ways. The government has conducted many studies which show that having two parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, is way better for the children than single parent or divorced homes. If the government would do anything it should be to prevent those kinds of households. (I am not actually advocating this but if the politicians want to hide behind helping the kids they should do that.) That being said the same scrutiny paid to heterosexual couples should be paid to homosexual couples. We need to 'think of the children'. On the issue of gay rights, well, I think I have stated where I stand. The government should afford protection for them like they do every other attribute specific group of people.

Now what I do not like. This video implies that because the congressmen conduct their private lives as gay men (or have in the past, one sexual encounter doesn't make you anymore gay than one heterosexual encounter makes you straight, just like eating a tomato doesn't make you a botanist). The video is playing on the discord between a man (or woman) who votes against gay rights who has gay encounters in their private lives. This is a logical fallacy. Let me explain.

There are many people who support speed limits who speed. They will quote speed limits as being in the best general interest of all people as they keep people from being killed (though the evidence on this is circumstantial). Or that the speed limit exists to keep down noise or some other thing. Basically they are good because they fill some opinion (rightly or wrongly, it is irrelevant) and thus is a good stance. However they speed, all the time. Thus by the logic in this trailer since they speed they must vote to abolish or raise the speed limit or else they are inconsistent. Is this really true? No. They are doing something illegal (for reference homosexual sex is banned in many states) but their opinions are that the rules for all of society should transcend either their personal struggles or should transcend people and look towards the good of society.

So lets bring this back to the issue of gay marriage. Maybe these congressmen actually believe that gay marriage is wrong even though they conduct their personal lives like gay men. It isn't impossible. For instance during the American revolution not all Americans were for the war. Some believed we shouldn't sever ties with Britain. They were still Americans and conducted business and lives here. The revolution was for people that belonged to this group but even though severing ties would have helped all Americans some still did not support it. If we were to follow the logic implied in this video then we would assume that all Americans should have supported the war or they were self-contradictory. However many had valid reasons to not support the war.

Now why do the politicians feel the way they do? Well this is likely the point the video is trying to attack. However the cultural background of all people is what makes us unique and is what makes the world interesting and what makes it work. Politics would be boring (and arguably more helpful) if everyone agreed the logical or research supported options were the best. However opinions and background cause these to be different. It is likely that part of the reason these politicians vote the way the do (or did) is because of a philosophical idea. Many people hate something about themselves (for good or bad, right or wrong) and would not support that action in a political context because they feel it is bad.

I just think it is a very bad idea to stir up public outrage by using logical fallacies. I feel that the pro-gay rights movement should be above this. Logical fallacies are hard to distinguish sometimes especially when you are close to the issue. However a proper perspective will make the movement more successful in the long run. The other difficulty is that rest a leg of the movement on that supposed hypocrisy of the other side will not work in winning the support of sympathetic voters because if the politician goes out and says 'I am sorry and broken and I am going to make it right' then you just let the issue become a moral issue resting on the opposition. Instead the pro movement should point out the virtues of it's platform regardless of the actions of the other side. Now the other side is not involved. The problem is on both sides the voters and politicians are swayed by their own blinders. You can't win the battle by telling the other side their blinders are idiosyncratic, you will lose their ear.