"For being called a right wing fear monger on this exact site for pointing out that the arguments for gay marriage, if consistently applied, would require you to accept polygamy, incest, and any other consentual sexual pairing anyone wished to engage in."

I'll readily grant you were right for seeing the connection between arguments. I can't grant being wrong for the simple reason that I don't remember if I even read the thread you're referring to, much less participated in it and I don't recall personally arguing that there isn't a logical connection at some point.

Now I'll ask you to ponder the more important question: How important is that logical connection, really? The way I see it, if consentuality leads to legalized polygamy, fine: that doesn't change the non-consentual nature of many polygamous marriages in practice, but I have no problem with consentual. Likewise, consentual incest is fine by me so long as the risk of genetic defects (which could be considered child abuse if carelessly ignored) is addressed in some way--the rest is science. And yes, I know that leads to the possibility of requiring genetic regulations for non-incestual marriages; that might be a good thing.

So, what's wrong with consentuality aside from leading to possibilities you or I personally may not agree to?