# Anti-SSM argument goes from stupid to... what the heck is this? **URL:** \ **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:** 27
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/521 "2014-04-12T13:10:24Z")
I’m not sure what point **Melchior** is trying to make with his tautology that only two people of the opposite sex may constitute a “marriage” by definition. It is true that growing up that was my understanding of the word, but I did consider polygamy to be “marriage” as it were even if it was something not legal. I’ll admit that when the subject of two men or two women getting married was first proposed, I thought it a laughable and impossible proposition like **Melchior** : such a thing simply isn’t a marriage. But definitions can change. As I’ve said many times, I vehemently disagree with any judge pretending to tell people that the word marriage has magically changed. The law doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. But if the people, through their elected representatives, wish to redefine the word we understood growing up as only applying to opposite sex couples to now include same sex couples, then the word under the law has been redefined to include those people as being capable of entering into marriage. I may not agree that being passed out in a vehicle in a parking lot is “driving” for the purposes of DUI laws, but if the state says it is, then that’s what it means as far as the law is concerned. I may disagree, I may bitch, I may advocate change, but **Melchior’s** simple dismissal of a word not being able to change in meaning is incorrect. There are usually two different debates on this issue: the constitutional question, and the legislative question. Like abortion, I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to SSM and this question should not be in the courts. It should however, be in the legislature. If New York wants SSM, great. If Utah doesn’t want SSM, also great. These debates always end up with a mingling of these two points. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/522 "2014-04-12T14:19:16Z")
I get the sense that you have a quarrel with the entire concept of judicial review, **jtgain**. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/523 "2014-04-12T14:21:12Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Why is that a problem? > > Mind you, I’m talking about _freely consenting adults_, not child marriage or bride selling. If more than two adults want to enter into a living arrangement together why is that a problem? How does it cause anyone outside their household a problem? Why does the notion frighten you? George W spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. I always wondered who gave him that word, and exactly what force emanates from a same sex married couple that can be felt by those in a traditional marriage. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/524 "2014-04-12T14:26:05Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > No, he did this in the business jargon thread. Posters were discussing business terminology, which he declared invalid, and supported his assertion by quoting old dictionaries. Apparently he’s the arbiter of when language got set in stone. Aha, now it get it! I missed that previous thread. So he’s a gentleman of intellect and refinement, gamely holding the line against the barbarism of age. It’s such a thankless job, but he shoulders the burden gladly. For how will the churlish hoi polloi ever better themselves if the man of discernment does not instruct them in proper usage? Truly the William Safire of our age! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/525 "2014-04-12T17:10:28Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > **Melchoir** reminds me of a former poster who was obsessed with a certain country singer. Melchoir, like that banned poster, is unable to let go of a subject, having a mental defect that compels them to keep on posting. They want the abuse and negative attention, because that is “proving” themself to the object of their affection. In the former it was a singer, with **Melchoir** it’s their own ego. > > Melchoir won’t go away until we stop feeding the [del]tr…[/del]. So, as soon as I hit the submit key on this post I pledge I’m going to stop feeding **Melchoir**. > > It’s kind of like what folks say about the Westboro Baptist Church. They are only out for the attention, and I think **Melchoir** is channeling their inner Fred Phelps. Precisely. Forum rules prevent me from stating what Melchior is doing, but it’s pretty fucking obvious, isn’t it? Since the mods won’t do anything about it, the only thing to do is just to let him alone. Remember, any time you respond to Melchior, you’re basically giving him a handjob. Is that something you want to do? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/526 "2014-04-12T17:25:31Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Precisely. Forum rules prevent me from stating what Melchior is doing, but it’s pretty fucking obvious, isn’t it? Since the mods won’t do anything about it, the only thing to do is just to let him alone. Remember, any time you respond to Melchior, you’re basically giving him a handjob. Is that something you want to do? First it’s just a handjob, the next thing you know he’ll want to marry me. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/527 "2014-04-12T17:25:31Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Precisely. Forum rules prevent me from stating what Melchior is doing, but it’s pretty fucking obvious, isn’t it? Since the mods won’t do anything about it, the only thing to do is just to let him alone. Remember, any time you respond to Melchior, you’re basically giving him a handjob. Is that something you want to do? Ew. Lord no. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/528 "2014-04-14T00:53:00Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Precisely. Forum rules prevent me from stating what Melchior is doing, but it’s pretty fucking obvious, isn’t it? Since the mods won’t do anything about it, the only thing to do is just to let him alone. Remember, any time you respond to Melchior, you’re basically giving him a handjob. Is that something you want to do? All right, that’s enough, all of you. You may or may not know that it is against the rules to state that another poster is deriving any form of sexual pleasure from his arguments or his positions. This is riiiiight up to that line. Don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/529 "2014-04-14T00:56:21Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > No, ‘just deal with it’ Melchior, in post #130 you quoted running coach in saying this: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by running coach View Post > The law is easy with same sex marriage. Spousal rights exist no matter what the gender **(no sex)**, no re-wording needed. > Multiple spouses will require new laws to deal with communal property, medical decisions, divorce, etc. Far different and much more complex. You inserted the bolded words into his quote. There has been [a running discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=719450) concerning the changing of words inside quote tags. Because of this you’ll get a mod note and not a warning here. But I encourage you to keep up with the rules and the discussion of same in About This Message Board and not violate this one in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/530 "2014-04-14T01:56:58Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > All right, that’s enough, all of you. You may or may not know that it is against the rules to state that another poster is deriving any form of sexual pleasure from his arguments or his positions. This is riiiiight up to that line. Don’t do it again. I thought that rule was just (or primarily) for GD threads. Anyway, **Melchior** has done to this thread exactly what that other guy did to that other thread a few days ago, about perceived persecution of Christians, by arguing _ad infinitum_ over the definition of “persecution”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/531 "2014-04-14T06:54:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > There are usually two different debates on this issue: the constitutional question, and the legislative question. Like abortion, I don’t believe there is a constitutional right to SSM and this question should not be in the courts. It should however, be in the legislature. If New York wants SSM, great. If Utah doesn’t want SSM, also great. There’s the full faith and credit clause, which many people argue means that if you get legally married in one state than all other states are required to recognize the marriage as valid. The Defense of Marriage Act created an explicit exemption for same-sex marriages. But it’s still an open issue whether an act of Congress can create an exemption to the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Double\_Foolscap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85e7bf/32.png) [@Double\_Foolscap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Double_Foolscap)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/532 "2014-04-14T10:22:00Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > You inserted the bolded words into his quote. There has been [a running discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=719450) concerning the changing of words inside quote tags. Because of this you’ll get a mod note and not a warning here. But I encourage you to keep up with the rules and the discussion of same in About This Message Board and not violate this one in the future. [Melchior]It’s a running discussion and as such not a tradition. I also submit to the misprint in the 1748 edition of Cholmondley’s Booke of Wordiness that defines “change” as “lake something different”, and as I didn’t refer to a large body of water in my quote then your censure is invalid. Trust me, I wrote an essay once.[/Melchior] ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/533 "2014-04-14T13:13:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’m not sure what point **Melchior** is trying to make with his tautology that only two people of the opposite sex may constitute a “marriage” by definition. > > It is true that growing up that was my understanding of the word[.] It wasn’t mine, strangely enough. There was a kid in school with two mommies. In retrospect, they couldn’t have been married in 1990 NJ, but they were married as far as I and the other kids were concerned. I mean, they weren’t divorced, therefore they were married. Duh. As shitty as kids can be, it took bigotry learned from adults for there to be a problem. Didn’t we have a similar tautological freakout a few years back about how an adoptive parent wasn’t a parent, because, well that’s just not what parent means wharrgarbl? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/534 "2014-04-14T13:32:38Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I thought that rule was just (or primarily) for GD threads. > > Anyway, **Melchior** has done to this thread exactly what that other guy did to that other thread a few days ago, about perceived persecution of Christians, by arguing _ad infinitum_ over the definition of “persecution”. :smack: Which, of course, is where I thought this thread was. Well, they’re mod notes, and the IMHO mods can slap me if they want. But nothing went on anyone’s permanent record, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/535 "2014-04-14T14:08:49Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > It wasn’t mine, strangely enough. There was a kid in school with two mommies. In retrospect, they couldn’t have been married in 1990 NJ, but they were married as far as I and the other kids were concerned. I mean, they weren’t divorced, therefore they were married. Duh. As shitty as kids can be, it took bigotry learned from adults for there to be a problem. > > Didn’t we have a similar tautological freakout a few years back about how an adoptive parent wasn’t a parent, because, well that’s just not what parent means wharrgarbl? The \*presumption \*in marriage is that of heterogeneous sexes. That is basic to the concept of marriage. It’s not ‘tautological’. Look into the history of marriage and you will see it. It’s a biological imperative. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/536 "2014-04-14T14:16:50Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > The \*presumption \*in marriage is that of heterogeneous sexes. So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/537 "2014-04-14T14:31:12Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > The \*presumption \*in marriage is that of heterogeneous sexes. That is basic to the concept of marriage. It’s not ‘tautological’. Look into the history of marriage and you will see it. It’s a biological imperative. Not anymore. If I meet someone who mentions being married, I don’t presume the sex of their spouse. It like someone mentioning they have two children, it’s completely gender neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/538 "2014-04-14T14:37:00Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? Humans have two sexes, which are necessary for reproduction. Marriage is ultimately based upon biology. Otherwise we don’t need it. A business partner can be of either sex, because ‘business’ has nothing to do with reproduction. Marriage, however, does. That’s what it was established for. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/539 "2014-04-14T14:53:57Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Humans have two sexes, which are necessary for reproduction. Marriage is ultimately based upon biology. Otherwise we don’t need it. > > A business partner can be of either sex, because ‘business’ has nothing to do with reproduction. Marriage, however, does. That’s what it was established for. So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/540 "2014-04-14T14:54:01Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Humans have two sexes, which are necessary for reproduction. Marriage is ultimately based upon biology. I thought it was a custom. Make up your mind, would you? And I am sure you know there are lots of marriages that involve no children or no biological children. The academic possibility of reproduction is of no import. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? The meaning of a word is determined by **Melchior**. That’s the only thing that counts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=28)