The focus, also within CDA, has traditionally been on fallacies committed by the protagonist(s), as a form of manipulation.
This fallacy is committed when a general proposition is used as the premise for an argument without attention to the (tacit) restrictions and qualifications that govern it and invalidate its application in the manner at issue.
If the argument focuses solely on how "traditional marriages" have historically been, then a logic fallacy is being committed.
Consider the resistance Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky (1982) observed people display to correction of the fallacies they commit in a surprising range of ordinary thought; or in a more disturbing vein, how the gifted mathematician, John Nash, claimed that his delusional ideas "about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did" (Nasar 1998, p. 11).
This is one of the most commonly committed fallacies, in which you assume something is correct or good simply because it is of popular belief.
The classification that is still widely used is that of Aristotle's Sophistic Refutations: (1) The fallacy of accident is committed by an argument that applies a general rule to a particular case in which some special circumstance ("accident") makes the rule inapplicable.
The analysis of this fallacy is that the general premise could not be known to be true unless the conclusion was known to be true; so, in making the argument the conclusion is assumed true from the beginning, or in an older mode of expression, the arguer has committed the fallacy of begging the question.
Spencer had spent most of his career doing precisely this, and Moore wrote, "There can be no doubt that Mr. Spencer has committed the naturalistic fallacy".
(3) The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed when the conclusion changes the point that is at issue in the premises.
