[Totenkopf]

Garfield made this exact same argument on the first page of this thread. SkinWalker debunked it for what it is, fallacious reasoning.

Wrong (again ). Skin didn't debunk anything. All he managed to do was gainsay Garf's point in an attempt to slap it aside. Even falls prey to your "appeal to the masses logical fallacy". I daresay that given that both subjects--gay marriage and polygamy--seem taboo to most of society, it'd have similiar responses to both. It's not rational for a society to say it's ok now for gays to marry, but not polygamists. It reflects nothing more than another arguable unjustifiable bias vs consenting adults who, as Skin pointed out, aren't involved in the relationship anyway. Try to be less messy with your "logic".

Originally Posted by Skin

That's a fallacious -very fallacious argument. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say its uninformed. In no way does it follow that polygamy or child-marriage would be acceptable if consenting adults of the same sex were allowed to marry.

Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.

Take your own advice and read more carefully. What I said was that the agenda is driven not toward merely forcing/getting society to accept gay marriage but to see it as a societal norm. In order to achieve that, society has to come to the conclusion that the position is acceptable. It's not a question of logic at that point, but human nature. If you weren't blinded by your own political position on the subject you might have understood that. The person engaging in fallacious thinking here is you, not me.