Tukukkk

When discussing with someone I like to take the argument they use and put it in another context, to see if it does work, and if it doesn't ask for the reasoning why the argument should be valid in one context but not in the other.

For example, recently someone told me that a particular party was positioned against gay marriage because they were christians and they believed that the only valid marriage should be a christian (or religious) marriage. I told him that if they thought that, they also should stand against civil heterosexual marriages, as they are not a christian or a religious ritual. The usual response I get is something like "they are not the same". Of course I know they are not the same, the point I'm making is why the argument should be valid when talking about gay marriage, but not about civil heterosexual marriage.

I have a lot of issues with this, and I usually get answers like "they are not the same", "it's nothing alike" and so. But my point is never about these analogies being the same, but about extrapolating paradigms to other situations so the argument is not set in fire through the context they desire.

So I have two questions about this.

1. Is my reasoning wrong?




2. If it is not, is there a name for this kind of reasoning?




3. Would it be a kind of fallacy implicating the things the other person compares against are not the same without pointing out what the differences are that make the argument not applicable within that particular context?

My English is kind of poor, so if there is something not clear enough just ask in the comments and I'll try to make myself clearer.

Thanks!

There is nothing right or wrong about the use of analogy as such. It is really only a statement. It says A is to B as C is to D. There is no argument, no logical inference. The analogy is valid, correct, persuasive, illuminating depending on whether (as a matter of fact, not of logic) A really is to B as C is to D.

An analogy always depends on some respect, or aspect, or feature by virtue of which it holds or fails.

So I might say that in respect of political power President Putin (A) stands to Stalin (B) as President Xi (C) stands to Mao Zedong (D). Putin is an autocrat and Stalin was a absolute dictator'; Xi is an autocrat and Mao was an absolute dictator. (This is not a statement of personal politics, be aware.)

Or I might say that in respect to the intake of oxygen gills are functional to a fish as the nose is functional to animals.

In your own example : in respect of religious status, a gay marriage stands in the same relation to a religious marriage as a civil heterosexual partnership stands to a religious marriage.

Whether this analogy is valid, correct, persuasive, or illuminating depends on whether the relevant claim can stand up against criticism. But the mere use of analogical reasoning as such is not 'bad logic'. As such it contains no logical error since it simply states or claims that a relationship holds good; it involves no argument, though it could be used in an argument if joined to other statements or claims.

Use of analogies is a great way to explain your argument to someone.
But it leaves you open to exactly this counter argument : Your analogy is flawed.
Whether your analogy is flawed or otherwise.

In this case your analogy is flawed, because religious weddings, and civil weddings are different things. Civil weddings are (usually) secular.

But a lot of Christians are against civil weddings of any kind. They consider them illegitimate. But then, Christians are against a lot of things, I find.