Again, appeal to popular opinion is a fallacy:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Look, guys and gals, I have a degree in philosophy. I know every fallacy there is.
Isn’t he just the cutest thing?
That doesn’t mean you’re right. Argument from Fallacy.
Believe it or not, sodomy is a very-well established tradition. Plato was homosexual.
I’m not appealing to anything. You said the argument wasn’t persuasive, it is to the majority.
And since we’re speaking of logical fallacies…http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
:rolleyes: Since you object to judges overruling these “traditional” marriage laws, I was asking what you think about changing the law through the legislative process.
Sodomy and homosexuality aren’t the same thing. Anti-sodomy laws are certainly nothing new, and the basis for the Lawrence ruling was not “sodomy is traditional.”
The fact that people can be influenced by propaganda is well known. That’s why people use propaganda.
Duh.
That’s right. Gays in 17 states are legally able to get married and within another 10 years, most of the US will allow gay marriage. And they will be forced through by “activist” judges and voted through by liberals and like-minded people. You should take your advice, lay back, and just accept it because hateful people often can’t always have what they want in life.
Its marriage because a piece of paper issued by the government says its marriage. It’s just as legitimate as marriages in a church. In fact, please excuse the gay couples who will now be collecting money that belongs to married people, because you sure as hell can’t stop them! 
WATCH OUT GUYS! HE’S GOT A DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY! STAND BACK OR HE MIGHT BE FORCED TO USE IT! :D:D:D
You say that it’s not discrimination over and over again. Prove why it’s not discriminating or stop saying it.
Appeal to authority, changing of topic. If you have a degree in philosophy, you should have taken some extra credit oration and debate classes. It may have helped you write persuading arguments.
Association fallacy.
I object to judges overruling referenda. Very much so.
I wouldn’t call it propoganda, but whatever it is, it’s working. Yay for America! Yay for gay marriage!
You have not proved that it is. It is *your *burden of proof, bubba.
So you’re OK with the referenda that have been for gay marriage, voted on and enacted in multiple states?
Wow, so you’re discounting the opinions of the people even as you spout off about majorities opposing gay marriage?
This is either a huge reading comprehension fail or you are dodging the question and doing a bad job of it. When states recognize SSM through the legislative process, are your objections satisfied? That is, do you think it’s Constitutional and legally OK?
Would you be OK with judges overruling them?
Judges should overrule anything that violates the Constitution. The people, through a referendum, may not violate the Constitution any more than any government official can.
I never said anything about ‘majorities opposing gay marriage’. I mentioned some referenda. Different thing altogether.
Yes, you do seem to know all the fallacies. :eek:
You just used the appeal to tradition fallacy, for instance.
No, they’re the same damn thing!
A referendum is passed when a majority of the voters vote yes.