# 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:** 17
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/321 "2014-04-11T20:40:45Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#):
>
> 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.
Though I am no longer Catholic (I am an atheist) I found some interesting information here:
[http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage](http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage)
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/322 "2014-04-11T20:41:06Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it has not.
_Your_ definition hasn’t changed. Everyone else’s has. Deal with it. “Gay” doesn’t mean “happy” anymore either. “Phone” means something besides a heavy bakelite wall attachment with a rotary dial.
Anything else we can clear up for you, Mr. Van Winkle?
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/323 "2014-04-11T20:42:06Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#):
>
> 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.
What authority can you cite that says this is a minority position, and if so, so what? It’s argumentum ad populum!
You really need to learn more about linguistics and lexicography. Just because some advocacy group makes claims and redefines terms to suit their purposes does not make them right. Remember Newspeak? This is nothing but propaganda!
---
### Author:  [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/324 "2014-04-11T20:45:06Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> It’s argumentum ad populum!
As pointed out to you above, this is not a fallacy when it comes to language. _This is how language works._
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/325 "2014-04-11T20:46:30Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Though I am no longer Catholic (I am an atheist) I found some interesting information here:
>
> [http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage](http://www.catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage)
And as a an atheist Jew, I happily counter your religious position with this one:
[http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item\_id=2000](http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=2000)
Full acceptance; endorsement of SSM.
> [@](#):
>
> What authority can you cite that says this is a minority position, and if so, so what? It’s argumentum ad populum!
You keep ignoring the fact that many states had majority votes endorsing SSM and public opinion polls have demonstrated a majority support. You keep ignoring this fact because it doesn’t jive with your preconceived ideas of rogue judges, radical minorities and too down social engineering.
---
### Author:  [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/326 "2014-04-11T20:47:41Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> 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.
Lots of words that boil down to…that’s the way it’s been done in the past.
I’m well aware of the history of marriage, a lot more than at least 90% of Americans. Unless you’re ready to say that marriages should still be arranged by parents and be about property (not to mention wives being property of their husbands) than you really have nothing to stand on. If the only part that you think should still be held is that it has to have opposite sex partners, they you’re a hypocrite.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/327 "2014-04-11T20:49:13Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> What authority can you cite that says this is a minority position, and if so, so what? It’s argumentum ad populum!
Opinion polls show more Americans support gay marriage than oppose it. I linked to one above from 2012. There are plenty more.
And if you read the Wikipedia page on _argumentum ad populum_ that I provided then you’ll note the exception for language usage further down the page. Unless, of course, you want to argue for the prescriptivist position. Be aware, however, that the sort of strong prescriptivism you’re advocating has pernicious implications. (That’s why it’s almost universally rejected by linguists.) For example, if you’re a strong prescriptivist there are LOTS of worse misuses of language that you should be railing against. Curious that you seem to only be a strong prescriptivist when it can be used as a club against gay people … .
---
### Author:  [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/328 "2014-04-11T20:53:01Z")
**Melchior** , I should have stopped reading this pages ago when it became apparent you weren’t interested in a good-faith debate (like somewhere between your first and second post). But I have to admit I’m kind of enjoying it. Why? Because despite all your insistence that SSM simply can’t be happening, it is. You’ve already lost. It is the law of the land in many states, it is supported by a majority in other states and will soon be legal in those, and eventually even the reddest of the red states will allow it. You have lost.
The arguments regarding why its prohibition needs to end have been made elsewhere and in this thread itself. You can continue to ignore all the posts with actual arguments and focus only on those with snark if you want. You can continue to throw out incorrect statements about the level of support it has. You can parse the meaning of words and attempt to assign your own definitions to words as if you own them. You can lament the passing of a time that you understood and the traditions that are now different from when you grew up. And in the end, you have still lost. The argument was decided years ago, and all that’s left is dragging along the stragglers or waiting for them to die out.
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/329 "2014-04-11T20:53:07Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> ‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unburnable gasoline’. If you can’t burn it, it’s not gasoline.
‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unleaded gasoline’. Back when all gas had lead, we didn’t need a term for it. Now we do.
---
### Author:  [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/330 "2014-04-11T20:56:24Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#):
>
> ‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unleaded gasoline’. Back when all gas had lead, we didn’t need a term for it. Now we do.
Great example. We even have “leaded gasoline”, which previously was just called “gasoline”.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/331 "2014-04-11T20:59:13Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> It’s not ‘narrow-minded’ at all.
Just started on the thread again, but being upset that not everyone is like you (general you) is the very definition of narrow minded. It doesn’t apply only to SSM.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/332 "2014-04-11T21:02:25Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Because I didn’t feel it was worth my time.
Says the person who seems to have spent a good part of today posting in this thread. 😛
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/333 "2014-04-11T21:04:36Z")
> [@TroutMan](#):
>
> **Melchior** , I should have stopped reading this pages ago when it became apparent you weren’t interested in a good-faith debate (like somewhere between your first and second post). But I have to admit I’m kind of enjoying it. Why? Because despite all your insistence that SSM simply can’t be happening, it is. You’ve already lost. It is the law of the land in many states, it is supported by a majority in other states and will soon be legal in those, and eventually even the reddest of the red states will allow it. You have lost.
This is not an argument.
> [@](#):
>
> The arguments regarding why its prohibition needs to end have been made elsewhere and in this thread itself.
It does not need to be prohibited because it’s not marriage and cannot be considered to be marriage. In the past this was not explicit. It was understood.
> [@](#):
>
> You can continue to ignore all the posts with actual arguments and focus only on those with snark if you want. You can continue to throw out incorrect statements about the level of support it has. You can parse the meaning of words and attempt to assign your own definitions to words as if you own them. You can lament the passing of a time that you understood and the traditions that are now different from when you grew up. And in the end, you have still lost. The argument was decided years ago, and all that’s left is dragging along the stragglers or waiting for them to die out.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/334 "2014-04-11T21:05:15Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#):
>
> Opinion polls show more Americans support gay marriage than oppose it. I linked to one above from 2012. There are plenty more.
>
> And if you read the Wikipedia page on _argumentum ad populum_ that I provided then you’ll note the exception for language usage further down the page. Unless, of course, you want to argue for the prescriptivist position. Be aware, however, that the sort of strong prescriptivism you’re advocating has pernicious implications. (That’s why it’s almost universally rejected by linguists.) For example, if you’re a strong prescriptivist there are LOTS of worse misuses of language that you should be railing against. Curious that you seem to only be a strong prescriptivist when it can be used as a club against gay people … .
It’s not an argumentum ad populum at all. It’s a bait and switch. **Melchior** insists over and over again that only a tiny minority of people support marriage equality. When other people point out that this incorrect and post proof, he says it’s an argumentum ad populum. It is a cited factual rebuttal to an incorrect claim.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/335 "2014-04-11T21:05:45Z")
> [@Antinor01](#):
>
> Lots of words that boil down to…that’s the way it’s been done in the past.
That’s what \*all \*customs and institutions are based upon, _nicht wahr_?
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/336 "2014-04-11T21:07:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> I’ll be sure to let my wife know that she is now my property, has no rights other than those I see fit to grant, and that her parents owe me a dowry. After all, we can’t go around redefining marriage.
>
> I’m sure she’ll take the news well when I point out that it’s supported by 40,000 years of human history (and hopefully she won’t point out that recorded history only goes back about 6,000 years.)
Hey, if you didn’t club her over the head and drag her back to your cave, it isn’t really a marriage. 😃
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/337 "2014-04-11T21:07:54Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> That’s what \*all \*customs and institutions are based upon, _nicht wahr_?
The philosophy of Reconstruction Judaism (branch of Conservative Judaism) is “the past has a vote, not a veto”. Not everyone has such a rigid adherence to past customs as you do. You don’t get to choose for me what underpins my society.
> **[Who is a Reconstructionist Jew?](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/who-is-a-reconstructionist-jew)**
>
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
---
### Author:  [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/338 "2014-04-11T21:08:22Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> That’s what \*all \*customs and institutions are based upon, _nicht wahr_?
sure thing. But they can and do change over time. ‘That’s the way we’ve done it before’ can be a useful guide, but is not the absolute final reason for doing something now.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/339 "2014-04-11T21:11:01Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#):
>
> And as a an atheist Jew, I happily counter your religious position with this one:
>
> [http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item\_id=2000](http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=2000)
>
> Full acceptance; endorsement of SSM.
>
> You keep ignoring the fact that many states had majority votes endorsing SSM and public opinion polls have demonstrated a majority support. You keep ignoring this fact because it doesn’t jive with your preconceived ideas of rogue judges, radical minorities and too down social engineering.
The point was the arguments in the article, not the fact the article existed.
---
### Author:  [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/340 "2014-04-11T21:11:25Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> The point was the arguments in the article, not the fact the article existed.
Your point. Not mine.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=16)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=18)