(Quick note: to be more inclusive I have changed the word 'homsexuality' in the title to LGBT. It doesn't change the analogy significantly, but hopefully makes clear I'm not trying to ignore anyone in that community.)
In case the title isn’t clear, what I intend to focus on in this diary is the occasional employment of the analogy between LGBT people and atheism. It is sometimes used and sometimes criticized, so I want to take a deeper look and unpack the baggage that often accompanies these arguments.
First of all, I think it will be useful to define what I mean by analogy for the context of this piece. An analogy is a rhetorical device that utilizes a comparison of similar characteristics of seemingly unrelated things. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. The only thing that compares exactly with a given thing is the thing itself. You do not have an analogy in that case.
To be useful, an analogy has to be two things: It must me accurate and it has to be instructive. If an analogy is too flawed, it will not carry the argument because it will be bogged down in bickering over the viability of the comparison. Once that hurdle is cleared, an analogy has to shed light on, simplify, or allow someone to relate to the thing being compared. If it can’t advance an argument it is a vehicle without cargo. There’s an analogy right there. An analogy is a cargo truck. If it doesn’t drive it’s useless, if there’s no cargo to transport, it’s similarly useless.
We have seen, for example, many recent attempts by politicians to craft analogies which help simplify the explanation of the current state of the economy and how we got here. Some of these work better than others.
In order to get at the heart of the analogy in question I’m going to look at both aspects of the analogy. After that, I’ll open it up to discussion and get your opinion. Scramble over the curly do-dad with me.
Read More
