# Anti-SSM argument goes from stupid to... what the heck is this?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [April 10, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819 "2014-04-10T19:53:49Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 11
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/201 "2014-04-11T16:57:14Z")
> [@DrCube](#):
>
> How does this relate to gay humans?
I have already explained, so read the prior posts.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/202 "2014-04-11T16:59:20Z")
> [@Kamino\_Neko](#):
>
> What an utterly bizarre number to choose.
>
> Civilization - ie, the legal framework in which _marriage per se_ can exist - first appeared on the scene ~10k years ago.
>
> If you expand the term to pre-civilized pairbonding rituals, anatomically modern humans first appeared ~195k years ago, and were certainly in tribal groups right from the start, since that’s pretty much our niche, evolutionarily speaking.
>
> 40k is an absurd number, having nothing to do with either potentially relevant development in human history.
>
> Of course, the idea that either definition is has been unchanging for any time period more than a handful of human generations, or even between two contemporaneous groups, is utterly absurd, as is the idea that most of the ‘changes’ you’re claiming are obviously insane weren’t - and aren’t - part of the definition in many of those times and places.
I assume the number was chosen to ensure that Neanderthals didn’t make the cut. Because, you know, who knows what nasty stuff Neanderthals got into! 😃
> **[Evolutionary shake-up! Humans had sex with Neanderthals, according to new study](https://www.salon.com/2014/04/09/new_study_shakes_up_evolution_scientists_confirm_neanderthal_human_copulation/)**
>
> Contradicting a 2012 study, these results help explain why Europeans and Asians may have inherited Neanderthal DNA
---
### Author:  [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/203 "2014-04-11T17:00:52Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Do you understand what I meant by ‘the same biological imperative’? Apparently not. The male lion does not want to raise some other male lion’s offspring.
Do you not understand what adoption is? Human males DO consent to raising some other males children at times. Lions never do. Therefore, what lions do is irrelevant to human custom.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/204 "2014-04-11T17:01:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#):
>
> I assume the number was chosen to ensure that Neanderthals didn’t make the cut. Because, you know, who knows what nasty stuff Neanderthals got into! 😃
>
> [http://www.salon.com/2014/04/09/new\_study\_shakes\_up\_evolution\_scientists\_confirm\_neanderthal\_human\_copulation/](http://www.salon.com/2014/04/09/new_study_shakes_up_evolution_scientists_confirm_neanderthal_human_copulation/)
Most of the so-called ‘changes’ did not affect the basic idea of heterogeneous sexes.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/205 "2014-04-11T17:02:35Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> This is not such a case. Straw man. It is a political manoeuver.
No, it’s a statement of fact. The culture is evolving, the traditions are evolving, and the definition and use of the word “marriage” is evolving.
**Melchior** ’s personal definition of “marriage” does not have anything to do, necessarily, with how the actual word is used in English. In English, in 2014, “marriage” is a concept that can include gay couples.
---
### Author:  [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/206 "2014-04-11T17:04:13Z")
Back to the OP:
My interpretation if this is not that they are making a new claim of why they think SSM is bad, but rather they are trying to distance themselves from their previous argument which has now been totally debunked.
Basically:
“We admit that the study (around which we previously based our entire argument) didn’t actually say that SSM was bad for kids of same sex partners, but that’s OK because we were never claiming that anyway (even though in fact we were). So don’t let the fact that this study has been ripped to shreds in academic circles influence you as to the validity of our argument as to why SSM is bad, should we be able to come up with one.”
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/207 "2014-04-11T17:04:31Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> You are imagining things.
I am not imagining plurality of votes that pass legislation, public opinion polls, conversations with colleagues, students, kids etc.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/208 "2014-04-11T17:04:36Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> The male lion does not want to raise some other male lion’s offspring.
[Somtimes they do.](http://asiatic-lion.blogspot.com/2011/02/lion-hearted-pride-adopts-15-mth-old.html)
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/209 "2014-04-11T17:05:35Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Do you not understand what adoption is? Human males DO consent to raising some other males children at times. Lions never do. Therefore, what lions do is irrelevant to human custom.
You misunderstood, of course. Fidelity protects the husband from raising another man’s offspring _ **without his consent or knowledge** _. That is why female fidelity was valued and virginity prized.
---
### Author:  [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/210 "2014-04-11T17:06:17Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> The male lion does not want to raise some other male lion’s offspring.
That’s because the cubs use way to much ketchup.
---
### Author:  [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/211 "2014-04-11T17:07:26Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Most of the so-called ‘changes’ did not affect the basic idea of heterogeneous sexes.
The idea is that people clearly mated with another species a long time ago - longer ago than your 40K years ago line. So, by your logic, mating with other species must be okay, as it is respectably ancient.
So your logic leads to the conclusion that marriage between a man and a female bonobo is okay, but not marriage between two men. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/212 "2014-04-11T17:09:39Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Love has nothing to do with it. Examine the history of marriage. Most marriages historically have been arranged. Look it up.
You’re kind of shooting yourself in your own foot on the “tradition” argument if you are using this as a defense against my question. Or do you insist that we go back to that fine tradition? How many goats are you intending to pay for your blushing bride?
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/213 "2014-04-11T17:10:22Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#):
>
> [Somtimes they do.](http://asiatic-lion.blogspot.com/2011/02/lion-hearted-pride-adopts-15-mth-old.html)
How nice! But unusual…
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/214 "2014-04-11T17:13:43Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> You misunderstood, of course. Fidelity protects the husband from raising another man’s offspring _ **without his consent or knowledge** _. That is why female fidelity was valued and virginity prized.
That’s a great explanation for ancient customs, professor. In modern times, we have paternity tests for those that care. Marriage is not about procreation, and hasn’t been for at least a century. It’s a way of legally formalizing agreements associated with long-term companionship. Such as medical visitation rights, power of attorney, and inheritance. The government doesn’t care whether two married people have kids, so they shouldn’t care whether they are opposite sex or not.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/215 "2014-04-11T17:14:27Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> That is why female fidelity was valued and virginity prized.
This has been a very bad and oppressive tradition and custom, and I am very glad that it is changing.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/216 "2014-04-11T17:17:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> This has been a very bad and oppressive tradition and custom, and I am very glad that it is changing.
I was _explaining_, and neither approving nor disapproving.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/217 "2014-04-11T17:19:14Z")
> [@DrCube](#):
>
> That’s a great explanation for ancient customs, professor. In modern times, we have paternity tests for those that care. Marriage is not about procreation, and hasn’t been for at least a century. It’s a way of legally formalizing agreements associated with long-term companionship. Such as medical visitation rights, power of attorney, and inheritance. The government doesn’t care whether two married people have kids, so they shouldn’t care whether they are opposite sex or not.
But you see, marriage \*is \*an ancient custom. Duh.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/218 "2014-04-11T17:20:58Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> I was _explaining_, and neither approving nor disapproving.
Do you approve? And, as you can see, popular approval/disapproval is a huge part of how customs and traditions (like the acceptance of same-sex marriages) change over time.
Like it or not (and you are clearly in some sort of denial), the custom and tradition (and definition) of marriage is changing.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/219 "2014-04-11T17:22:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Do you approve? And, as you can see, popular approval/disapproval is a huge part of how customs and traditions (like the acceptance of same-sex marriages) change over time.
>
> Like it or not (and you are clearly in some sort of denial), the custom and tradition (and definition) of marriage is changing.
No, that’s false. Some people have filed lawsuits. The problem is that the arguments being presented are specious (that some sort of ‘right’ is being violated). What disturbs me is the abuse of judicial power based on lunatic interpretations of law and acceptance of these arguments. In many forums and in these suits, logical argument is at a premium.
How is ‘you are in denial’ an argument? Give me an argument! I have. ‘Like it or not’ is not an argument.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/220 "2014-04-11T17:23:49Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> But you see, marriage \*is \*an ancient custom. Duh.
That you have demonstrated has changed and evolved with the culture.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=10)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=12)