# 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:** 16
### Author:  [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/301 "2014-04-11T20:12:57Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Not an argument. Give me an argument.
Considering that your only argument is this is how it’s been done in the past, you really don’t have room to talk.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/302 "2014-04-11T20:13:45Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#):
>
> The meaning of a word is determined by usage. Everyone (even the [minority](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/)of people opposed to gay marriage) understands what is meant by the phrase “gay marriage”. Argue all you want about the private meaning that you’ve constructed for the word “marriage”, but you don’t get to impose it on the rest of us.
>
> I don’t know why you’re so strongly married to the idea that you do.
If the concept of ‘marriage’ included the possibility of members of the same sex joining in wedlock, the word ‘gay’ would not be necessary, would it?
‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unburnable gasoline’. If you can’t burn it, it’s not gasoline.
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/303 "2014-04-11T20:14:01Z")
The argument is:
1. It is in the people’s, and hence the state’s, interest to extend the legal protections of marriage to same sex couples. Stable relationships can be a positive force in society. Those individuals who have chosen to live in stable partnerships are better served by this suite of legal protections and societal endorsement. The acceptance of the legitimacy of same sex relationships has lead to idea that legal protections are valuable to our society.
2. We have decided in our society that protecting civil liberties are a justifiable end unto itself. Societal norms change over time and our society holds that as a positive value. SSM is an area that popular support has grown over time, and as a population our society has begun to end denial of those rights.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> If the concept of ‘marriage’ included the possibility of members of the same sex joining in wedlock, the word ‘gay’ would not be necessary, would it?
>
> ‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unburnable gasoline’. If you can’t burn it, it’s not gasoline.
Interracial marriage
Second marriage
May-December marriage
Gay marriage
Interfaith marriage
Etc
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/304 "2014-04-11T20:16:13Z")
He doesn’t understand that word meanings change over time. Hell gay used to be mean happy. Now it doesn’t.
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/305 "2014-04-11T20:17:16Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> If the concept of ‘marriage’ included the possibility of members of the same sex joining in wedlock, the word ‘gay’ would not be necessary, would it?
>
> ‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unburnable gasoline’. If you can’t burn it, it’s not gasoline.
Oh wow, good point. Now I am convinced. :smack::smack::smack::smack:
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/306 "2014-04-11T20:18:28Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Again, this is not an argument.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Again, this is not an argument. Give me an argument.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Not an argument. Give me an argument.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Not an argument. Give me an argument.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Not an argument. Give me an argument.
This is Abuse. Arguments are down the hall.
---
### Author:  [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/307 "2014-04-11T20:19:22Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Not an argument. Give me an argument.
Why should anyone bother? There have been numerous successful rebuttals to your point of view (do not, whatever you do, ask me to list them, they are there, go back and review the thread) and you just wave them away by any means you can think of, save either logic or sense (because those wouldn’t work for you).
You are the black hole of argument.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/308 "2014-04-11T20:25:51Z")
> [@Antinor01](#):
>
> Considering that your only argument is this is how it’s been done in the past, you really don’t have room to talk.
No, I am saying that the basis for laws governing marriage are customs of long standing, and that gives them a certain weight. If you counter-argue about slavery, I will tell you that slavery was not universally practiced, at least not in the form in which it frequently comes to mind (in ancient times, a ‘slave’ was more or less a servant). The fact is that throughout history and across cultures, marriage was used to combine families for purposes of reproduction and to dispose of property to the heirs. Most people who are advocating SSM are completely clueless about the history and purposes of marriage. It surprises them to learn that marriage for love is relatively new, for instance. Historically speaking, probably 99% of all marriages ever contracted were arranged by the parents.
Marriage is a way of creating ‘artificial relatives’ in a sense. We are related by ‘blood’ to our parents, children, and siblings, but not to our spouses. Marriage is intended to create the same \*strength \*of relationship as brother, son, father, etc., but of course it is of a different _kind_. This is why we distinguish relatives by ‘blood’ and by ‘marriage’. But it is always understood that marriage is between opposite sexes.
---
### Author:  [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/309 "2014-04-11T20:26:00Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> If the concept of ‘marriage’ included the possibility of members of the same sex joining in wedlock, the word ‘gay’ would not be necessary, would it?
>
> ‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unburnable gasoline’. If you can’t burn it, it’s not gasoline.
Gasoline as a liquid doesn’t burn. Does that mean it doesn’t exist?
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/310 "2014-04-11T20:29:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Even under rational basis the court still has to determine if there is a legitmate state interest - and when the sole evidence relied on by the legislature is a study, it must at least have some indicia of reliability.
We’ve done this in other threads, but your standard of rational basis simply converts judges in legislators.
A judge could strike down any law on the basis that the attorney arguing for the state doesn’t convince him of the merits of the law and is therefore irrational.
Take my speed limit example. If a legislature votes for an 80mph speed limit, who knows why it was passed or even if there was a single reason it was passed. Maybe it was a compromise between the people who wanted 90mph and those who wanted 70mph so they could outvote the “55 and stay alive” crowd. A flawed engineering study shouldn’t invalidate the 80mph speed limit.
Maybe Utah bans SSM as a middle ground because some conservative legislators want to ban all SSM and divorce, liquor, and sex with the lights on while left leaning legislators want legal polygamy, SSM, prostitution, orgies in grade school, and bestiality. Who knows exactly why? And if we don’t like what the legislature has done, we can vote others in who can change it.
Just because an appellate attorney cites a flawed study isn’t a reason to second guess a legislature under rational basis review.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/311 "2014-04-11T20:29:56Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> If the concept of ‘marriage’ included the possibility of members of the same sex joining in wedlock, the word ‘gay’ would not be necessary, would it?
Yay! Progress!
Okay. Now, would you agree that qualifying a noun with an adjective does not AUTOMATICALLY result in an oxymoron? So if I make reference to “interracial marriage” that doesn’t automatically imply marriage DOESN’T include the possibility of two people of different races getting married? Correct?
So your quoted argument is false.
There was a time years ago when most people defined marriage as something between a man and a woman. Just as there was a time years ago when most people defined marriage as something between people of similar races or religions. However, meanings shift. When MOST people in America talk about marriage these days, they mean a legal/religious bond between two adults, regardless of gender, orientation, race or religion. Sometimes we might qualify our terms to discuss a subset of all marriages – I might talk about a “Catholic wedding” for example – but that doesn’t mean that that subset is not a marriage.
Now, you’re clearly part of the minority that clings to the old definition of marriage. Well … good luck with that. Language and society has moved on and if you want to be understood by other people you need to use the language the rest of us use.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/312 "2014-04-11T20:30:09Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#):
>
> The argument is:
>
> 1. It is in the people’s, and hence the state’s, interest to extend the legal protections of marriage to same sex couples. Stable relationships can be a positive force in society. Those individuals who have chosen to live in stable partnerships are better served by this suite of legal protections and societal endorsement. The acceptance of the legitimacy of same sex relationships has lead to idea that legal protections are valuable to our society.
The culture and the law needs only to tolerate homosexuality, not to endorse it. There is a difference.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. We have decided in our society that protecting civil liberties are a justifiable end unto itself. Societal norms change over time and our society holds that as a positive value. SSM is an area that popular support has grown over time, and as a population our society has begun to end denial of those rights.
This is not a question of civil liberties.
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/313 "2014-04-11T20:32:41Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> But it is always understood that marriage is between opposite sexes.
Not anymore, despite your beliefs. The definition of marriage has changed.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/314 "2014-04-11T20:33:20Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#):
>
> Yay! Progress!
>
> Okay. Now, would you agree that qualifying a noun with an adjective does not AUTOMATICALLY result in an oxymoron? So if I make reference to “interracial marriage” that doesn’t automatically imply marriage DOESN’T include the possibility of two people of different races getting married? Correct?
Not automatically, but in this case certainly.
Does anyone know if any attempts were made before recently to do this? Say in the 1940s or something? If so, what happened and what reasons were given?
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/315 "2014-04-11T20:34:58Z")
> [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#):
>
> Not anymore, despite your beliefs. The definition of marriage has changed.
No, it has not.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/316 "2014-04-11T20:35:52Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it has not.
That’s not an argument. Give me an argument.
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/317 "2014-04-11T20:36:37Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it has not.
Yes, it has.
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/318 "2014-04-11T20:37:35Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> The culture and the law needs only to tolerate homosexuality, not to endorse it. There is a difference.
>
> This is not a question of civil liberties.
Says who?
I believe society is vastly improved when we fully accept diversity and not merely tolerate people of various background. Society is less stable and less productive when people are not fully integrated.
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/319 "2014-04-11T20:38:57Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#):
>
> Says who?
Says Felchior!
---
### Author:  [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/320 "2014-04-11T20:39:22Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Not automatically, but in this case certainly.
Where does that “certainly” come from? As people keep pointing out to you, you’re arguing from the MINORITY position. And when it what words mean, [_argumentum as populum_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) is, in fact, VALID. Words mean what most people think they mean. And if most people think the word “marriage” includes same-sex unions, then it DOES.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=15)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=17)