Logic Problem

[IKSA]

I don't want to live on this planet anymore...

 

[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.

wouldn't it still qualify as an equivocation fallacy?

I was referring to the statement

Gay people CAN get married as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex.

This is not a fallacy. It's just irrelevant. As has been pointed out, however, any attempt to use this statement to somehow discredit the possibility of gay marriage is an equivocation fallacy.

 

[gabx]

There are a lot of fallacies here. First of all, she assumes that equal treatment is "fair." You could just as easily assume that it is unfair for straight people to not be able to marry someone of the same sex. She also assumes that the same actions have the same utility for everyone. Obviously, this is not true. It would be like saying that it's fair to ban Spanish worldwide because no one else would be able to speak it, but in reality only Spanish-speaking people would be hurt.

 

[Darkmantle]

But... it's not even equal treatment...

But I guess that means we should outlaw straight marriage and institute gay only marriage. it would be fair then because gay people and straight people can marry people of the same sex, and they both can't marry people of the opposite sex. I guess that's fair.

/sarcasm

EDIT: logicul you are the king of devil's advocate.

 

[Deacon Cole]

I'm pretty certain this is a logical fallacy because it can be reversed, I'm just not certain what it's called.

Sure is. It's the logic fallacy of totally missing the god damned point. Anyone, especially Orson Scott Card, who even suggests that homosexuals can still marry people of the opposite sex are stupid. That's all there is to it.

 

[Pancakehelicopter]

I'm fairly sure that the argument presented is illogical. although I cant be bothered doing a truth table. However, the argument is also wrong in it's premises; the argument works on a idea of relative scarcity,or lack there of. A gay can marry just as any other person can, so this is fair right, they aren't denied of anything given to others right? Wrong, there is a hidden premise in the argument that it does not acknowledge it'self: that 'straight' marriage is accentually a means to happiness. Therefore, gays do not achieve the same satisfaction as heterosexuals from this scenario and are therefore being denied something the majority of the community has access to.

my 2 cents.

 

[maxmanrules]

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH HER BRAIN???
It's like claiming to use the scientific method when you have modified the evidence to fit the hypothesis. And that argument had very little to do with Gay marriage and devolved into stupid woman attacking black families for some reason.

 

[plugav]

I can't name the flaw, but I can definitely see it. The arguement is that same-sex marriage should not be legalized because only people of opposite sexes can marry. Isn't that what they call "circular logic?"

What the gay rights supporters are saying is that heterosexuals can marry people they are sexually attracted to, while homosexuals cannot; therefore, in banning same-sex marriage, the law discriminates against homosexuals. Coulter's supposed refutation does not address that in any way.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Ann Coulter is an idiot.

No, haven't you seen Boondocks? She's just a professional troll. XD

 

[Iron Lightning]

Irrelevant, since gay people do not have the right to marry someone that they're are attracted to whereas straight people do possess that right. Hence the law is unfair.

 

[GamerKT]

Ann Coulter is an idiot.

No, haven't you seen Boondocks? She's just a professional troll. XD

Y'know, I saw that episode before I knew who Ann Coulter was. Seeing how similar she is to her "caricature" was hilarious.

 

[the spud]

I'm not well versed in formal logic, but I know her argument is flawed because it the part that makes anti-gay marriage unfair is that "straight" people can get married to people of their own sexual orientation, while gays can not. Being of the opposite sex has nothing to do with it.

 

[DoubleTime]

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.

Wow, that is an awesome re-write! Thanks a bunch! Seeing it written that way makes it much easier to work with and see the flaws.