Godwins law but for comparing gays to pedophiles?

[Logic please]

@owj: I was just about to post that rather than a "straw" argument, what's being presented is a "straw" gay attitude or attribute, IMO. Methinks I've been gazumped.

Suffice to say, it's demonstrably a wrong argument by the ACL and their ilk, and wrong for lots of good reasons.

ADD: I perceive the "straw" to be that homosexuality is incorrectly characterised as a type of "sexual deviancy", and therefore necessarily allied with any and all other types of deviancy. Any lie will do, apparently.

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by Logic please

@owj: I was just about to post that rather than a "straw" argument, what's being presented is a "straw" gay attitude or attribute, IMO. Methinks I've been gazumped.

Suffice to say, it's demonstrably a wrong argument by the ACL and their ilk, and wrong for lots of good reasons.

ADD: I perceive the "straw" to be that homosexuality is incorrectly characterised as a type of "sexual deviancy", and therefore necessarily allied with any and all other types of deviancy. Any lie will do, apparently.

Yeah I think "wrong" is the best word to describe it. They think that homosexuality is "sexual deviancy", but it's not. I don't think there's a name for just being wrong. It was the assumption that is a sexual deviance that is the begging the question fallacy I referred earlier too, and then the comparison between two types of "sexual deviance" that is the fallacy of false equivalence (because even if we didn't notice the first fallacy, it doesn't follow that paedophilia and homosexuality are equivalent) - but all this stems from just being wrong to begin with.

This will definitely open me up to accidental straw man arguments, but I think the question of whether or not homosexuality is "deviant" is somewhat subjective and taking either position is not necessarily illogical. I don't think it's deviant, and I'm sure I can make a good argument for that, but it relies on some values that are not formulated through a definite logical process - you can oppose those values without being illogical.

An example I'm talking about is a technical definition of "normal" and what you can describe as abnormal. ~95% of the population is heterosexual (or so I'm told, if this isn't true, pretend it is, because I'm talking about logic and language - if the percentage is significantly lower, the conclusions I make would be wrong, in this specific instance, but could be applied to other areas), and so you can describe the 5% as "abnormal." It's a loaded word, and a poor choice of terminology, that I would never use - but it's not illogical. Of course there is no kind of specific definition of what percentage something must be to be described 'abnormal' - men are make up slightly less than 50% of the population, but are not abnormal - this is a subjective word.

"Sexual deviance" is usually described as an "abnormal sexual behaviour that is often harmful." Not all sexual deviance is harmful though. For example being turned on by adults in nappies is a harmless sexual deviance that apparently actually exists. So purely in terms of the definitions of words (and ignoring values, ethics, opinions etc.) it is not illogical to call homosexuality a "sexual deviance."

But of course, we are not computers. Words have connotations and effects beyond their literal meaning. There are plenty of good reasons that can be made for not viewing homosexuality as a "sexual deviance." But even if you accept that it is, it's obviously completely different to paedophilia. Just for starters it is both harmless and doesn't violate anybody's personal rights. (There are also some good arguments about what "deviance" actually means - ie. it is sometimes defined as differing from what is socially accepted, rather than socially practised. Therefore given the majority of people think homosexuality is socially acceptable, it is not deviant, while paedophilia is not socially acceptable, and so is).

Anyway, sorry, I've wafted in this post. The point I meant to make is that some things are just wrong without being logical fallacies. You can only commit a logical fallacy if you put forward a reasoned (but not necessarily reasonable) argument, and there is an error in the reasoning. A statement devoid of the reasoning that led to it may or may not be a result of logical fallacy, but can still be wrong.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by owheelj

Ok, but can you answer my question and explain how in this case it "constitutes a straw man"?

I will answer that question if you declare you are enquiring about why I arrived at my general description of the nature of the argument put forward by the ACL and in more extreme form by others, pleading consequences of polyamory, paedophilia and even bestiality.

What is the position of homosexual rights proponents that this position superficially resembles?

I am disinclined to respond to misrepresentations of what I have said where said misrepresentation is otherwise immaterial. If it is based on misunderstanding rather than misrepresentation then please return to my comment and query above.

My usual presumption is that most people will have understood what I wrote, as I wrote it, so further discussion of, or argument about, my opinion about a classification of an argument which we all agree is a poor argument seems almost like a derail irrelevant to the OP.

[rayne]

Interestingly:

Pedophilia can be described as a sexual preference that is phenomenologically similar to heterosexual or homosexual orientation, in that it emerges prior to or during puberty; is stable over time; and directs the person’s sexuality in terms of his thoughts, fantasies, urges, arousal, and behavior. (Cutler, 2008. P 549). These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses (Berlin, 2008)

Brian L. Cutler, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law, SAGE, 2008

[AustralAlien]

I had the impression that people who are against gay marriage etc tend to make the argument along the lines of a slippery slope; i.e. 'if we let the gays marry then we'll soon have men marrying children, their dogs, cats, barns and tomatoes'.

It's utter nonsense of course. I do wonder if such arguments were made when black people sought equal rights in America. Did someone say 'if we let black people vote, then we'll soon see goats with the right to vote!'

As for the Godwin's Law thing. Well, I've not heard of anyone mentioning a law but I'm pretty sure that since this comparison seems to arise quite often it could be made into a similar type of law.

[rayne]

I've seen that and posted about it on the Marriage Equality forum. It's interesting to see exactly how antiwhatever propaganda is created.

[simonecuttlefish]

I sometimes Godwin bomb a thread with Nazi references, but rather than deliberately trying to derail the topic, I am in fact pointing out the repetition of actual Nazi behaviour. I have no problems with doing so when the themes being discussed were official Nazi practice. If people actually mimic the speeches of Joseph Goebbels or Adolph Hitler or one of his horrific cronies, then I point it out.

When religious leaders call for concentration/labour/death camps for homosexuals, I point out that these were actually Nazi policies and were actual and factual Nazi realities. If someone is mimicking the actions of Nazis, then point it out. If the sentiments coming out of the mouths of people are directly comparable to the speeches of some of this planets most abhorrent monsters, then point it out.

It's not a Godwin if it actually IS indistinguishable from Nazism, is it?

[simonecuttlefish]

You are right. I used the term "religious leaders" quite badly there. Change it to "religious lunatics on youtube"
Like this guy


and

from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu..._the_Holocaust

Himmler had initially been a supporter of Röhm, arguing that the charges of homosexuality against him were manufactured by Jews. But after the purge, Hitler elevated Himmler's status and he became very active in the suppression of homosexuality. He exclaimed, "We must exterminate these people root and branch... the homosexual must be eliminated." [3]
Shortly after the purge in 1934, a special division of the Gestapo was instituted to compile lists of gay individuals. In 1936, Himmler created the "Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion".
Nazi Germany thought of German gay men as part of the "master race" and sought to force them into sexual and social conformity. Gay men who would not feign a switch in sexual orientation were sent to concentration camps under the "Extermination Through Work" campaign.
More than one million gay Germans were targeted, of whom at least 100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms as "convicted homosexuals".[1] Hundreds of European gay men living under Nazi occupation were castrated under court order.[4]

[the_gelf]

To answer the OP, no, they are different aspects.

One is about antagonism exacerbated by anonymity.
The other is about ignorance and self-justified discrimination.