# 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:** 4
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/61 "2014-04-10T22:14:56Z")
> [@TroutMan](#):
>
> Thank you. It definitely helps to understand the depth of your argument.
That is the best possible argument.
---
### Author:  [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/62 "2014-04-10T22:16:08Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Argumentum ad populum…fallacy.
>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum\_ad\_populum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
So what sort of arguments are statements like “Everybody ‘knows’ what marriage is” and “What supports all laws regarding marriage? Custom and only custom.”?
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/63 "2014-04-10T22:16:34Z")
> [@Antinor01](#):
>
> I’m not sure what they’re saying either. I can see two possibilities.
>
> 1. Children of opposite sex couples will be discriminated against because they aren’t able to be raised by a same sex couple.
>
> 2. Children of opposite sex couples haven’t had the option of being raised by same sex couples, so many of them will decide to (how doesn’t seem answered) trade in their straight parents for gay ones. and ANARCHY or some such!
>
> I didn’t say it made sense!
Is it too late for me to trade in my parents? I ask because my father is dead, and I wouldn’t mind having two parents again. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/64 "2014-04-10T22:16:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> It’s not a fallacy if marriage is as you claim just a matter of custom. You can’t have it both ways.
>
> And as a practical matter, so long as your side loses the people getting married won’t care, they’ll just be enjoying their marriage.
I don’t care one whit about homosexual activity. It is not about that. It is about the meaning and nature of marriage. Homosexuals \*do \*have the right to marry. Hasn’t anyone noticed? The only restriction is that I has to be someone of the \*opposite \*sex, because that’s what marriage is.
---
### Author:  [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/65 "2014-04-10T22:16:49Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> That is the best possible argument.
I think we finally have common ground. Indeed, that is the best possible argument you can make.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/66 "2014-04-10T22:18:42Z")
> [@Munch](#):
>
> So what sort of arguments are statements like “Everybody ‘knows’ what marriage is” and “What supports all laws regarding marriage? Custom and only custom.”?
There is a difference between custom and popular opinion. Do I have to explain it to you?
---
### Author:  [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/67 "2014-04-10T22:19:36Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> There is a difference between custom and popular opinion. Do I have to explain it to you?
I think you will.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/68 "2014-04-10T22:20:00Z")
> [@TroutMan](#):
>
> I think we finally have common ground. Indeed, that is the best possible argument you can make.
No, it is the _meaning of the word_, which is unassailable.
---
### Author:  [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/69 "2014-04-10T22:20:37Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Argumentum ad populum…fallacy.
>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum\_ad\_populum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
What do you think custom is, except argumentum ad populum? The opinion of the people is changing, and therefore the custom is changing. The previous custom was to be surprised and shocked at the very idea of same-sex marriage. Now the custom of most people is more like “Oh? That’s nice.” The meaning of the word “marriage” has expanded in most people’s minds to include same-sex couples. That is how the meanings of words do, in fact, change. This is one case where the majority does rule with a benevolent despotism, and you are now in the minority.
Your argument seems to be that nothing can or should change, ever. I really don’t see how you can hold that view in any consistent way. You asked what about murder? I ask what about slavery? What was once a benign custom is now considered abhorrent, and rightly so.
---
### Author:  [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/70 "2014-04-10T22:20:47Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> There is a difference between custom and popular opinion. Do I have to explain it to you?
Ooh ooh, I know! Custom is what you think and popular opinion is what everyone else thinks?
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/71 "2014-04-10T22:21:10Z")
> [@Munch](#):
>
> I think you will.
I am too busy, perhaps you can take some time and educate yourself.
---
### Author:  [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/72 "2014-04-10T22:23:34Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> I am too busy, perhaps you can take some time and educate yourself.
I looked it up. It’s the sum total of opinions over time, thus, argumentum ad populum. Or if you prefer, appeal to tradition.
---
### Author:  [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/73 "2014-04-10T22:24:22Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it is the _meaning of the word_, which is unassailable.
You mean the meaning of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEe1cTDbXHU) word?
---
### Author:  [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/74 "2014-04-10T22:25:10Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it is the _meaning of the word_, which is unassailable.
Isn’t your backing for this the idea that for 40,000 years people have used it to mean one thing?
So it’s not unassailable, by your basis. All you’d need is 40,000 years of people using it to mean something else.
---
### Author:  [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/75 "2014-04-10T22:28:59Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Is it too late for me to trade in my parents? I ask because my father is dead, and I wouldn’t mind having two parents again. 😃
According to the states argument (from what I can tell) that would be fine, but only if it’s same sex parents.
---
### Author:  [@Battle\_Pope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Battle_Pope)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/76 "2014-04-10T22:32:47Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it is the _meaning of the word_, which is unassailable.
Are there any other words that have this kind of ‘set-in-stone’ meaning or is this the only one?
---
### Author:  [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/77 "2014-04-10T22:35:15Z")
As far as I know there are two people, Melchior being one of them, on this board who have, “Marriage means a man and a woman because that’s what it means” as the main core of their argument. The argument never changes and the primary rebuttal to any counter argument is, “No, that’s what it means.”.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/78 "2014-04-10T22:40:10Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Homosexuals \*do \*have the right to marry. Hasn’t anyone noticed? The only restriction is that I has to be someone of the \*opposite \*sex, because that’s what marriage is.
“You can marry someone, but only if you don’t find them attractive”. :rolleyes:
A line of argument which is sadistic, and no better than trying to argue against interracial marriage by claiming that people are allowed to marry, as long as they marry someone of the same skin color.
And no, that is not what marriage is about.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No, it is the _meaning of the word_, which is unassailable.
It’s not only assailable, it’s outright silly to say so. Like it or not same sex people are getting married, right now, and their marriage is just as valid as anybody else’s.
And judging by history, in a few decades your way of thinking will be essentially dead in most of the West. Just as opposition to interracial marriage is essentially dead.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/79 "2014-04-10T22:45:45Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Argumentum ad populum…fallacy.
>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum\_ad\_populum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)
Considering what a custom is, this argument is absolutely not a fallacy. I’m arguing that same-sex marriage is becoming part of custom – and a big reason for this is how popular it is becoming.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 10, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/80 "2014-04-10T22:47:30Z")
To **Melchior** – if same-sex marriage is legal, and if the vast majority accept it, and it’s common for a hundred years, would you admit that at that point it’s become custom? How about a thousand years? Is there any point at which it would become part of custom?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=5)