A limited partnership
Article: A limited partnership (Baltimore Sun, Maryland, US)
Author: The Editor, unnamed (information welcome)
It’s saddening to read a poorly constructed argument, especially when the conclusion could – and should – have been justified had the writer spent more time planning. Today’s article is an example of such an argument.
Conclusion: Civil partners of homosexual state employees should benefit from free/subsidised health insurance [in Maryland].
The editor uses two separate reasons to justify this conclusion.
R1: “At least 15 states, including Maine, Arizona and Montana…and a host of smaller Maryland municipalities” already provide health coverage, therefore Maryland state should provide health benefits too.
Tu quoque; you cannot justify a conclusion on the basis that other states have already concluded the same. This is also an appeal to popularity, the editor has assumed that because a number of other states have concluded one course of action is right, that it must be the right.
R2: Other social groups receive health benefits, therefore homosexual partners should too. “It’s a matter of basic fairness – providing equal pay (and benefits) for equal work.“
This appears, on the surface, a valid argument; however, the editor has committed the fallacy of tu quoque again. His argument simplified: homosexuals partners should have health benefits because hetrosexual partners have health benefits. The problem is in that the editor assumes that the law governing hetrosexual couples is right. By using the same logic I could argue: homosexual couples don’t receive health benefits, so neither should other social groups. So, the editor’s argument allows a contradiction in the conclusion (because of the tu quoque).
Double tu quoque whammy!
