Logical Fallacies - The Golden Mean Fallacy

This is more formally known as the argument to moderation.  The problem is when people figure that if two parties hold differing views, the truth must be somewhere in the middle.  Please note that the truth may very well be somewhere in the middle, but it might not.  The existence of the differing views is not evidence for the truth being a compromise of the positions.

For example, if one person claims a gay orientation is a choice, and someone else claims it is not a choice, that is not evidence that the truth lies in the middle.  It may (as I believe) still not be a choice at all.  It doesn't matter what some people think.  I suspect this fallacy arises because we, as humans, are hardwired to appreciate fairness.  So we tend to want to make sure both sides of an argument have a fair shot, and both to be at least somewhat right.  A compromise for a solution seems to satisfy this sense of fairness.  Haggling for a price seems to work on this principle.

But as a logical argument, it doesn't hold water.  When one group says that the Church should change the temple sealing ordinance to accommodate same sex couples, and another group says the Church should not allow any same sex marriage in the church, the truth may not be in the middle.  It might not even be one of the arguments, but something even more extreme, or an option not even considered.  The existence of the two opinions is not a valid argument for the truth to be somewhere between them.