# 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:** 12
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/221 "2014-04-11T17:25:09Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, that’s false. Some people have filed lawsuits.
Some people have filed lawsuits, some states have had their legislatures legalize SSM, some states have had popular referenda that legalized SSM, and thousands of gay couples have gotten legally married. And the polling shows that the American public supports legalized SSM (and, therefore, recognizes that it is indeed ‘marriage’) by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
So it’s not false.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/222 "2014-04-11T17:26:14Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> What disturbs me is the abuse of judicial power based on lunatic interpretations of law and acceptance of these arguments.
How do you feel about the popular referenda in several states that have legalized SSM?
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/223 "2014-04-11T17:27:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> How do you feel about the popular referenda in several states that have legalized SSM?
Misguided masses. Obviously. there are many ways to influence people besides logic.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/224 "2014-04-11T17:28:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> That you have demonstrated has changed and evolved with the culture.
…and has always involved mixed sexes. Duh.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/225 "2014-04-11T17:30:06Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> …and has always involved mixed sexes. Duh.
That is changing. Duh.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/226 "2014-04-11T17:31:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#):
>
> Because that’s the job of a legislature, not a judge sitting as a super legislature. Let’s say that a state raises it’s speed limit to 80mph based upon an engineering study. Should a judge be able to strike down the law and set the speed limit at 55mph because he says that the study is nonsense?
>
> Of course not. If the study is really and truly nonsense, then you try to convince your legislators next term that the study is nonsense and get them to vote the other way. Judges should be deciding questions of law and not making policy choices.
You’re saying it’s not the job of a judge to evaluate the merit of the evidence presented in a case over which they are presiding? I thought that was their entire job. Isn’t that why we call them “judges” in the first place?
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/227 "2014-04-11T17:31:43Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> there are many ways to influence people besides logic.
Is that what you’re trying to do here?
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/228 "2014-04-11T17:32:05Z")
If you read **Melchior** ’s arguments about marriage - if for some reason you choose to subject yourself to this stuff - he often seems to be arguing that our concept of marriage is so utterly arbitrary and illogical that if you change a single element of our society’s concept of marriage even a tiny bit, the whole thing will fall apart because it will become obvious to everyone that marriage is useless and a complete sham that survives only because it’s customary. The remarkable thing is that this is supposed to be a defense of traditional marriage.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/229 "2014-04-11T17:33:39Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Misguided masses. Obviously. there are many ways to influence people besides logic.
How long do the masses have to be “misguided” before you would acknowledge that custom and traditions for marriage have changed? 5 years? 50 years? 500 years?
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/230 "2014-04-11T17:36:52Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#):
>
> After discovering that “Don’t let those people get married because ewwww” is not regarded as an actual argument, they’ve fallen back on “Don’t let those people get married because derrrrp”. That’s not regarded as an actual argument either, but it’s pretty much all they have left.
Oh, I wouldn’t bet on it. There is still the “pbbbbth” argument. That tends to go over really well with judges - the case law is full of wins for that one. And the “nyh-nyh, you can’t make me” argument. The “I know you are, but what am I” argument has a strong history. But I think the final winning argument will be “yo momma.” Thats the nuclear option to be pulled out as a last resort.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/231 "2014-04-11T17:37:22Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> If you read **Melchior** ’s arguments about marriage - if for some reason you choose to subject yourself to this stuff - he often seems to be arguing that our concept of marriage is so utterly arbitrary and illogical that if you change a single element of our society’s concept of marriage even a tiny bit, the whole thing will fall apart because it will become obvious to everyone that marriage is useless and a complete sham that survives only because it’s customary. The remarkable thing is that this is supposed to be a defense of traditional marriage.
I don’t understand your post.
There are many different kinds of customs in different cultures, but those that derive from biological imperatives tend to be more consistent across cultures. Read EO Wilson’s _Sociobiology_ or _On Human Nature_.
[http://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-new-Preface-Revised/dp/0674016386/ref=sr\_1\_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397237862&sr=1-4&keywords=sociobiology](http://www.amazon.com/Human-Nature-new-Preface-Revised/dp/0674016386/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397237862&sr=1-4&keywords=sociobiology)
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/232 "2014-04-11T17:38:46Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Since same-sex unions are inherently infertile…(you can follow the logic)
I’m involved in a same-sex relationship, and it’s entirely possible (albeit unlikely) for it to result in a naturally conceived child.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/233 "2014-04-11T17:41:22Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> I don’t understand your post.
That’s OK. It wasn’t intended for you, and it’s an analysis of your argument that you wouldn’t perform. Still, that’s the viewpoint you’ve expressed upon at great … great … great … great length.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/234 "2014-04-11T17:43:07Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> That’s OK. It wasn’t intended for you, and it’s an analysis of your argument that you wouldn’t perform. Still, that’s the viewpoint you’ve expressed upon at great … great … great … great length.
Marriage customs are the cultural expression of biological imperatives. They have been outlined above. Sexual unions that are in principle unfruitful are discouraged.
Read some Darwin.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/235 "2014-04-11T17:45:30Z")
Fallacy of desperately trying to change the subject.
---
### Author:  [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/236 "2014-04-11T17:45:40Z")
> [@kayaker](#):
>
> That’s because the cubs use way to much ketchup.
You have made this thread worth reading, which I didn’t think was possible. Outstanding.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/237 "2014-04-11T17:47:17Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Sexual unions that are in principle unfruitful are discouraged.
Such as women beyond childbearing years, or those with fertility problems?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/238 "2014-04-11T17:48:15Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Sexual unions that are in principle unfruitful are discouraged.
This is pretty highly false. There are lots of traditions and customs of sexual unions that are unfruitful that have been encouraged, including from some cultures that have lasted for millenia.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/239 "2014-04-11T17:50:11Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Marriage customs are the cultural expression of biological imperatives. They have been outlined above. Sexual unions that are in principle unfruitful are discouraged.
>
> Read some Darwin.
In a previous thread, you made a claim to some expertise in logic and philosophy, despite manifestly being unable to accurately identify or define even the most basic of logical fallacies.
Is it your intention to make a similar showing for ecology? Because there’s absolutely nothing that Darwin ever wrote that’s even slightly relevant to the discussion at hand. But if you’d like to pretend to undeserved expertise again, I look forward to seeing you once again be eviscerated by people who actually understand the material being debated.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/240 "2014-04-11T17:50:12Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> I’m involved in a same-sex relationship, and it’s entirely possible (albeit unlikely) for it to result in a naturally conceived child.
And I’m the only one that’s confused here?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=13)