# 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:** 38
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/741 "2014-04-14T22:20:49Z")
I’m going to say something nice for a change. **Melchior** , that translation from German into English you did was pretty much spot-on. I don’t know what the heck it had to do with anything, but that was a pretty tricky passage and you did a damn good job of it. Good on you. 🙂 > [@Melchior](#): > > Scare quotes have several functions. Maybe that is too complicated for you. > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare\_quotes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes) Can I nominate this for “best post in the thread”? I mean, there have been a lot of things that made me laugh, but this one has me giggling 5 minutes later. > [@Melchior](#): > > I would not think of them at all. More or less cargo-culteees I suppose. Going through the motions but the result is not the genuine article. Of course, the thing about the cargo cults was that in the end, the difference was between getting the end result and not getting the end result. With the SSM folks, the difference is between getting the end result and getting something which is indistinguishable from the end result. Or can you provide any functional difference between a same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage that would interest those involved? I mean, even if you wouldn’t call it a marriage, to them, it is. And it confers all the same legal benefits, and societal benefits, and the like. So… how is this comparable to the cargo cults, where the meaningful difference is instantly apparent (the planes never landed)? > [@Skywatcher](#): > > Members of the same sex aren’t capable of having an intimate or close union? Don’t ask me to search for it (I think it was in the first 5 pages or so) but he literally did say that gay people can’t have relationships. > [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#): > > Why has no one opened a pit thread yet!? Because this is more fun? Seems kinda redundant at this point. It’s like, right here we have a perfectly good train wreck; no need to distract from it by making a new thread elsewhere saying “look at the pretty train wreck”. Other than maybe to share how much fun this thread is. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/742 "2014-04-14T22:30:34Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Which cannot be used to affect the law. You cannot appeal to this (which I seriously doubt is true anyway) as a criterion of the lawfulness of such ‘marriages’. I’m not arguing about the law, I’m pointing out that your insistence that the word “marriage” has not changed in usage is incorrect. As a legal matter, I’m very pleased that many state legislatures and popular vote referenda have legalized gay marriage in multiple states. It’s becoming very clear that SSM will soon be legal everywhere in the country, whether by legislative action, judicial action, or popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/743 "2014-04-15T00:26:28Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > My wife is a medieval musicologist. Last year she published a monograph on new techniques she’s developed for establishing the provenance and performance practice of musical works that exist only as isolated manuscript scores. > > She devoted an entire chapter to how modern assumptions about “what marriage is” can lead the careless historian astray. Specifically she looks at how merely labeling a particular Du Fay piece a “wedding song” has led music historians to make a number of ahistorical assumptions about its context and significance. We all think we know “what a wedding is”, but once you move into a culture that is displaced in either time or place you may find that your unexamined normative assumptions lead you into error. > > As a translator do you make a distinction between “what does this word mean to me” and “what did this word mean to the person who wrote it”? Has it even occurred to you that that might be an important distinction to make? > > For example, it was quite interesting to me that you felt the need to correct the original author. Perhaps YOU think honor is a binary quality that can’t be reduced, but does your correction do a good job of capturing the author’s intent? Are you accurately rendering the author’s words into English, or is your translation what you think the author SHOULD have written? You misunderstood my criticism. I did not say that honour cannot increase or decrease; of course it can. I said that it is not \*consumed \*or _depleted_ or _exhausted_. Those words are idiomatically linked to physical commodities (ore, fuel, oil, money, bullion, etc.). We speak of ‘depleted reserves’ of silver ore, etc. Here are a couple of examples: “Morgan Silver Dollars were minted between 1878 and 1904. Coinage of the silver dollar was suspended after 1904 when demand was low and the bullion supply became _ **exhausted** _. Under provisions of the Pittman Act of 1918, nearly 270 million Morgan Dollars were melted down to silver bars for export, causing some dates to become rare. In 1921, Morgan Dollars were again minted as an encore and the last year of the series. Although Morgan Dollars were minted in large quantities from 1878 through 1904, because of the a silver shortage, very few have survived through today. Further melting occurred in the 1960’s and 1980’s when silver prices skyrocketed. Only about 17% of the total number of Morgan Silver Dollars minted, have survived.” [http://www.luvgold.com/the-history-of-silver/](http://www.luvgold.com/the-history-of-silver/) “Gold mining in the People’s Republic of China has recently made that country the world’s largest gold producer. For the year 2007, gold output rose 12% from 2006 to 276 tonnes (or 9.7 million ounces) to become the world’s largest for the first time—overtaking South Africa, which produced 272 tonnes. South Africa had until then been the largest for 101 years straight since 1905. The major reasons for this change in position had been due to South African production falling by 50% in the past decade as production costs there have risen, more stringent safety regulations have been implemented, and existing mines have become _ **depleted** _.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold\_mining\_in\_China](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_mining_in_China) ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/744 "2014-04-15T00:28:56Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’m going to say something nice for a change. **Melchior** , that translation from German into English you did was pretty much spot-on. I don’t know what the heck it had to do with anything, but that was a pretty tricky passage and you did a damn good job of it. Good on you. 🙂 > > Can I nominate this for “best post in the thread”? I mean, there have been a lot of things that made me laugh, but this one has me giggling 5 minutes later. > > Of course, the thing about the cargo cults was that in the end, the difference was between getting the end result and not getting the end result. With the SSM folks, the difference is between getting the end result and getting something which is indistinguishable from the end result. Or can you provide any functional difference between a same-sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage that would interest those involved? I mean, even if you wouldn’t call it a marriage, to them, it is. And it confers all the same legal benefits, and societal benefits, and the like. So… how is this comparable to the cargo cults, where the meaningful difference is instantly apparent (the planes never landed)? > > Don’t ask me to search for it (I think it was in the first 5 pages or so) but he literally did say that gay people can’t have relationships. > > Because this is more fun? Seems kinda redundant at this point. It’s like, right here we have a perfectly good train wreck; no need to distract from it by making a new thread elsewhere saying “look at the pretty train wreck”. Other than maybe to share how much fun this thread is. Not an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/745 "2014-04-15T00:30:57Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’m going to say something nice for a change. **Melchior** , that translation from German into English you did was pretty much spot-on. I don’t know what the heck it had to do with anything, but that was a pretty tricky passage and you did a damn good job of it. Good on you. 🙂 Thanks. I am a professional translator. So, you know German? ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/746 "2014-04-15T00:34:09Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > **Melchior** , I think someone like you who cares so much about language might enjoy [Language Log](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/). It’s a long-running blog run by a group of linguistics professors. It’s a very fun read. > > For example, here’s a lovely post from 2004 about the [Etymological Fallacy](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001256.html). Professors? (Makes sign of cross with fingers even though atheist). [http://www.thescribesdesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/arlene-crosses-her-fingers\_tb-s3e6recap-300x200.jpg](http://www.thescribesdesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/arlene-crosses-her-fingers_tb-s3e6recap-300x200.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/747 "2014-04-15T00:58:12Z")
ETA: Yes, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/748 "2014-04-15T01:01:10Z")
Have we heard yet why legal recognition of gay unions, whatever they’re called, is a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/749 "2014-04-15T01:04:26Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Have we heard yet why legal recognition of gay unions, whatever they’re called, is a bad thing? Even **Melchior** seems to have no problem with legal recognition of a status which is identical in every way to marriage so long as it’s called something other than marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/750 "2014-04-15T01:04:33Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Yep. That’s what a ‘marriage’ is. Funny how language works. A man who has gone through all the Roman Catholic rituals and is ordained by the bishop is called a ‘priest’. The rituals made him a ‘priest’. > > Along the same lines are women who take the vows. They become ‘nuns’. If you wanted to switch the names around I think you would meet some significant opposition. > > men and women who go through the rituals and repeat the vows are ‘married’ and are called ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. > [@Melchior](#): > > Usage by whom? It matters. Your statement is overly broad. Are you familiar with the term ‘special pleading’? > [@Melchior](#): > > Priestess is the correct word. ‘Pastor’ is a word that never seems to have developed a popular feminine form. I’m giving you a warning here for generally hijacking (yet another of numerous) threads, continuing the same behavior in the same thread after getting notes, and just acting troll-ish in most of your replies all round. I strongly suggest you cut out the hijacking of topics (usually relating to word/language definition/usage and/or picking nits over small things), your generally belligerent and snarky attitude and posts, and ignoring mod instruction the first time you’re told. Moving this to the Pit as the OP now requests. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/751 "2014-04-15T01:05:13Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Not an argument. Please contribute an argument. Eh, I’m bored right now. Instead of an argument, I have a few questions for you. What is the definition of marriage that you believe is correct. Since many pieces of marriage have changed or been different in various cultures and times, what are the characteristics that make something a real marriage. Is it one man and one woman? Are more than two people still marriage? What about how they meet, does it have to be arranged by the parents? Until very recently, wives were actually property or for legal purposes essentially controlled by their husband…does that still have to true? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/752 "2014-04-15T01:06:26Z")
Can we still poke it with a stick? Or is that more hijacking? ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/753 "2014-04-15T01:06:28Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > Moving this to the Pit as the OP now requests. Good call ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/754 "2014-04-15T01:07:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Even **Melchior** seems to have no problem with legal recognition of a status which is identical in every way to marriage so long as it’s called something other than marriage. Well no, he disagrees that it is a “good thing” or however I worded it before. ---
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/755 "2014-04-15T01:10:17Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Eh, I’m bored right now. > > Instead of an argument, I have a few questions for you. > > What is the definition of marriage that you believe is correct. Since many pieces of marriage have changed or been different in various cultures and times, what are the characteristics that make something a real marriage. Is it one man and one woman? Are more than two people still marriage? What about how they meet, does it have to be arranged by the parents? Until very recently, wives were actually property or for legal purposes essentially controlled by their husband…does that still have to true? Basically an arrangement between families involving at least one male and one female from each, usually in the form of exchange for the purpose of breeding and property. Most marriages probably involved cousins and in many places still do. That is a loose definition. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/756 "2014-04-15T01:15:02Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Well no, he disagrees that it is a “good thing” or however I worded it before. I asked whether he’d be cool with creating a legal arrangement that had the same requirements and ramifications as marriage, but was (a) open to same-sex couples, and was (b) called either \*marriage \* or, well, _something other than marriage_; would the name be the entirety of his objection? He replied “Yes, it is the entirety of my objection. You could create something new (or perhaps just use adoption or Power of Attorney or a business partnership contract) that would take care of many of the wants. But it is not and cannot be ‘marriage’.” ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/757 "2014-04-15T01:19:23Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Don’t ask me to search for it (I think it was in the first 5 pages or so) but he literally did say that gay people can’t have relationships. That’s not the sort of union I had in mind. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![F.Pu-du-he-pa-as](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c89c15/32.png) [@F.Pu-du-he-pa-as](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.Pu-du-he-pa-as)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/758 "2014-04-15T01:21:58Z")
Thanks, **Idle Thoughts**. ---
**Author:** ![oft\_wears\_hats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7993a0/32.png) [@oft\_wears\_hats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oft_wears_hats)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/759 "2014-04-15T01:22:22Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I’m giving you a warning here for generally hijacking (yet another of numerous) threads, continuing the same behavior in the same thread after getting notes, and just acting troll-ish in most of your replies all round. > > I strongly suggest you cut out the hijacking of topics (usually relating to word/language definition/usage and/or picking nits over small things), your generally belligerent and snarky attitude and posts, and ignoring mod instruction the first time you’re told. > > Moving this to the Pit as the OP now requests. _ **Thank you.** _ Where can I send the fruit basket? ---
**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 15, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/760 "2014-04-15T01:22:48Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I asked whether he’d be cool with creating a legal arrangement that had the same requirements and ramifications as marriage, but was (a) open to same-sex couples, and was (b) called either \*marriage \* or, well, _something other than marriage_; would the name be the entirety of his objection? > > He replied “Yes, it is the entirety of my objection. You could create something new (or perhaps just use adoption or Power of Attorney or a business partnership contract) that would take care of many of the wants. But it is not and cannot be ‘marriage’.” How about “smarriage?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=39)