# 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:** 28
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/541 "2014-04-14T14:57:13Z")
> [@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. Remember - when we presume, we make a pres out of u and me. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/542 "2014-04-14T14:57:41Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. > > The meaning of a word is determined by **Melchior**. That’s the only thing that counts. Yes, it is a custom based on biological imperatives. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/543 "2014-04-14T14:57:47Z")
> [@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:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/544 "2014-04-14T15:14:34Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > So, in your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? The claim of those seeking to legalize this sort of thing are not claiming that the meaning of the word has changed. That is not their argument. They are claiming it is unfair discrimination under the 14th amendment. Whether people are using the word differently has absolutely no bearing on the case ‘Marriage’ is the name for a custom of long standing. It isn’t a simple matter of waving a magic wand and making the meanings of words change. That’s not allowable, and I’m sure you can see why. One could get out of anything (paying taxes, etc.) by saying that the words don’t apply to you. ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/545 "2014-04-14T15:16:05Z")
> [@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. Uh, plenty of people reproduce with marriage. We “need marriage” to provide a stable social framework within society and to support those who engage in pair-bonding. Reproduction outside of marriage has been going on for those same 40,000 years you like to talk about. Still no comment on my previous arguments, eh? ---
**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, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/546 "2014-04-14T15:18:51Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Uh, plenty of people reproduce with marriage. We “need marriage” to provide a stable social framework within society and to support those who engage in pair-bonding. Reproduction outside of marriage has been going on for those same 40,000 years you like to talk about. > > Still no comment on my previous arguments, eh? Marriage is a way of establishing responsible reproduction and making people accountable for their children. That is part of the intent. This is why the word ‘bastard’ exists: it’s a name for children born outside of marriage. ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/547 "2014-04-14T15:21:30Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Yes, it is a custom based on biological imperatives. Customs change. I’d talk about how marriage has changed, but people have already explained that to you at stupefying length. Plenty of people get married and don’t have children, and they are no less married than anyone else. > [@Melchior](#): > > The claim of those seeking to legalize this sort of thing are not claiming that the meaning of the word has changed. That is not their argument. They are claiming it is unfair discrimination under the 14th amendment. They’re saying both. If I counted the number of people who have said exactly this to you in this thread, it would probably be in the dozens. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/548 "2014-04-14T15:21:50Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Yes, it is a custom based on biological imperatives. The only “Biological Imperative” is survival - both of self and of the species. Pro-creation is required for survival of the species, and as nature shows - the majority of the time “pair bonds” are not required, and in fact, miminize the chances of successful pro-creation, especially in critters with longer gestational periods and an average of 1 birth per successful copulation. Marriage is a societal /culture driven item only - and has no direct bearing on the “biological imperative” . ---
**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, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/549 "2014-04-14T15:23:07Z")
> [@simster](#): > > The only “Biological Imperative” is survival - both of self and of the species. > > Pro-creation is required for survival of the species, and as nature shows - the majority of the time “pair bonds” are not required, and in fact, miminize the chances of successful pro-creation, especially in critters with longer gestational periods and an average of 1 birth per successful copulation. > > Marriage is a societal /culture driven item only - and has no direct bearing on the “biological imperative” . It is a way of keeping people together so that women are not left holding the bag. Duh. And people are not bear or tigers. It takes at least 16 years to become independent, unlike a year or two for most animals. ---
**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, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/550 "2014-04-14T15:25:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Customs change. I’d talk about how marriage has changed, but people have already explained that to you at stupefying length. Plenty of people get married and don’t have children, and they are no less married than anyone else. > > They’re saying both. If I counted the number of people who have said exactly this to you in this thread, it would probably be in the dozens. Claiming the meaning of the word has changed only because you have refused to use it properly is like asking the court for mercy because you are an orphan…when you murdered your parents. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/551 "2014-04-14T15:27:08Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > It is a way of keeping people together so that women are not left holding the bag. Duh. And what does that have to do with SSM? a) in a male - male relationship - there is no woman to hold the bag - if they choose to adopt, they will parent the child together. b) in a female-female relationship - there are 2 women to hold the bag - etc. In both cases - allowing them to be legally married - allows them to follow the same set of legal and cultural principles that have been established for heterosexual couples. The ability to “naturally conceive” is irrelevant to the equation. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/552 "2014-04-14T15:28:22Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Claiming the meaning of the word has changed only because you have refused to use it properly is like asking the court for mercy because you are an orphan…when you murdered your parents. Except that the meaning of the word has not changed - you are limiting the definition to your ill-conceived notions. ---
**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, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/553 "2014-04-14T15:30:55Z")
> [@simster](#): > > And what does that have to do with SSM? > > a) in a male - male relationship - there is no woman to hold the bag - if they choose to adopt, they will parent the child together. > > b) in a female-female relationship - there are 2 women to hold the bag - etc. > > In both cases - allowing them to be legally married - allows them to follow the same set of legal and cultural principles that have been established for heterosexual couples. The ability to “naturally conceive” is irrelevant to the equation. What are you talking about? What part of my explanation don’t you understand? Your points are irrelevant. ---
**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, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/554 "2014-04-14T15:32:16Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Claiming the meaning of the word has changed only because you have refused to use it properly is like asking the court for mercy because you are an orphan…when you murdered your parents. I didn’t say the meaning of the word has changed.\* I said customs change, and you’ve acknowledged that fact yourself. \*Although as long as I have you here: **NEWS FLASH! THE MEANING OF THE WORD HAS CHANGED!** Also your analogy is deliberately and staggeringly inappropriate, but I think you knew that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/555 "2014-04-14T15:35:42Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > It is a way of keeping people together so that women are not left holding the bag. Duh. Irrelevant to the discussion of a “biological imperative”, which is in itself irrelevant to the discussion of a cultural tradition. Please make a point. ---
**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, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/556 "2014-04-14T15:36:35Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > The claim of those seeking to legalize this sort of thing are not claiming that the meaning of the word has changed. No, YOU’RE claiming that the meaning of the word CAN’T change. > [@](#): > > ‘Marriage’ is the name for a custom of long standing. It isn’t a simple matter of waving a magic wand and making the meanings of words change. You still haven’t answered my question: In your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? ---
**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, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/557 "2014-04-14T15:38:25Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Except that the meaning of the word has not changed - you are limiting the definition to your ill-conceived notions. I do not understand. Try again. ---
**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, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/558 "2014-04-14T15:39:25Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > No, YOU’RE claiming that the meaning of the word CAN’T change. > > You still haven’t answered my question: In your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? No, I’m claiming that you cannot petition or argue about it, and \*demand \*that it change. You cannot have it changed just to suit your whims. Don’t try that tactic again. It would be the same as going before the court and saying the word ‘tax’ means ‘water’, even if I can persuade 10,000 folks to join me. It isn’t going to change just because you said so. ---
**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 14, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/559 "2014-04-14T15:41:44Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Marriage is a way of establishing responsible reproduction and making people accountable for their children. **That is part of the intent**. This is why the word ‘bastard’ exists: it’s a name for children born outside of marriage. Of course. That is different from what you said. And I agree that historically, and for some even currently, procreation is PART of the intent (bolding mine). However, historically (as even you pointed out) and certainly currently, procreation is only one aspect of marriage. Plus, SSM couples can procreate (biologically or by adoption) and certainly would benefit from all the benefits of having children born within a state protected, stable pair bond. Every benefit that marriage has for OSM benefits SSM and this benefits society as a whole. ---
**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, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/560 "2014-04-14T15:42:41Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > No, I’m claiming that you cannot petition or argue about it, and \*demand \*that it change. You cannot have it changed just to suit your whims. Don’t try that tactic again. It’s pretty clear that you don’t want to answer this question. But it’s pretty simple: In your expert opinion, do words have intrinsic meanings? Or are the meanings of words determined by usage? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=29)