# 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:** 45
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/881 "2014-04-15T15:54:45Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > ‘from the latest editions of all the dictionary makers’? what is that supposed to prove? that’s the best argument you have? suppose the dictionary makers were bribed or coerced to make the changes? that proves nothing. It actually makes little to no difference what dictionary makers say–it’s how the words are used. Dictionaries do not dictate language. Actual usage does. There are plenty of words I use that are not in the dictionary or the dictionary hasn’t caught up with more modern senses of the word. That bothers me not one bit, as long as the meanings are understood with the people I’m communicating with. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/882 "2014-04-15T15:55:03Z")
Take a look at these two images. See any difference? [![](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Onedolar2009series.jpg) ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Onedolar2009series.jpg) [![](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sacagawea_dollar_obverse.png) ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sacagawea_dollar_obverse.png) They look quite different to you, but they actually are both worth $1. You see, the law says they are both legal currency. You might not like that new-fangled coin (especially since it has a picture of a woman on it, and daggummit, this country was founded by men!). You are free to not use the coins if you so desire, but people will look at you like the crank you are if you insist that the coin is only cargo cult currency. ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/883 "2014-04-15T15:55:22Z")
Can you tell a SSM from a OSM from looking at the marriage certificate? If one marriage isn’t real there should be a way to tell even if the names are “Pat” and “Sam.” ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/884 "2014-04-15T16:06:03Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > ‘from the latest editions of all the dictionary makers’? what is that supposed to prove? that’s the best argument you have? suppose the dictionary makers were bribed or coerced to make the changes? that proves nothing. I know I don’t believe any definition that isn’t from Samuel Johnson’s _A Dictionary of the English Language_. Your 1961 dictionary ain’t shit. ---
**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, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/885 "2014-04-15T16:06:25Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > ‘from the latest editions of all the dictionary makers’? what is that supposed to prove? that’s the best argument you have? suppose the dictionary makers were bribed or coerced to make the changes? that proves nothing. [Pattycake.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17290631&postcount=831) ---
**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, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/886 "2014-04-15T16:07:08Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > That the current consensus is that marriage is not bound by gender or sex. Because that’s what lexicographers do: record the actual usage of words by actual people. Earlier dictionaries reveal the meanings people of those eras imputed to words and future dictionaries will demonstrate a similar slice of that future time. Consensus? I doubt that. ---
**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, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/887 "2014-04-15T16:08:12Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > LOL. The obvious difference is functional. You can’t spend counterfeit money. But a gay marriage grants exactly the same rights and privileges as an opposite sex marriage. It is functionally equivalent. “Counterfeit” money that you can legally spend isn’t really counterfeit, is it? > > You really are shockingly ignorant of how the world works. But what if someone \*demanded \*that you accept it as real? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/888 "2014-04-15T16:09:42Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Consensus? I doubt that. That is not an argument. Do not do this again. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/889 "2014-04-15T16:14:36Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > But what if someone \*demanded \*that you accept it as real? If the “counterfeit” dollar confers on me the same rights/purchasing power as a “real” dollar, then it’s a “dollar.” You’re welcome to make a distinction between “real” and “counterfeit,” but to me, they’re both real if they’re treated as dollars in popular usage and even moreso if codified into law. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/890 "2014-04-15T16:22:05Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > If the “counterfeit” dollar confers on me the same rights/purchasing power as a “real” dollar, then it’s a “dollar.” You’re welcome to make a distinction between “real” and “counterfeit,” but to me, they’re both real if they’re treated as dollars in popular usage and even moreso if codified into law. But you don’t get the point: you really don’t accept it, but are forced to by others. It really has no value, you’re just pretending it does. ---
**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 15, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/891 "2014-04-15T16:25:13Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > But you don’t get the point: you really don’t accept it, but are forced to by others. It really has no value, you’re just pretending it does. Uh, that’s how fiat currency works. Take a dollar out if your wallet and read what’s written on it. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/892 "2014-04-15T16:26:15Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > But you don’t get the point: you really don’t accept it, but are forced to by others. It really has no value, you’re just pretending it does. So what defines its value? Melchior’s opinion, and no one else’s? If the law says it has a value, it still doesn’t so long as you don’t like it? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/893 "2014-04-15T16:27:56Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > But you don’t get the point: you really don’t accept it, but are forced to by others. It really has no value, you’re just pretending it does. It doesn’t matter. If it acts like money and is accepted like money, it is money. Money is what we agree for it to be. ---
**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, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/894 "2014-04-15T16:28:01Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > So what defines its value? Melchior’s opinion, and no one else’s? If the law says it has a value, it still doesn’t so long as you don’t like it? It’s an analogy. Do you accept that the copper 1921 peace dollar is not a real 1921 peace dollar, just something that looks like it? ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/895 "2014-04-15T16:29:16Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > It’s an analogy. Do you accept that the copper 1921 peace dollar is not a real 1921 peace dollar, just something that looks like it? You do understand that the law says the fake dollar isn’t a real dollar, right? Never mind, of course you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/896 "2014-04-15T16:30:51Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > So what defines its value? Melchior’s opinion, and no one else’s? If the law says it has a value, it still doesn’t so long as you don’t like it? If you owe **Melchior** twenty bucks and hand him a nice green official engraved portrait of Andy Jackson, he’s free to put it behind him next time nature calls. However, the evil guvmint will still force him to accept the fact that you don’t owe him twenty bucks any more. That’s how “legal tender” works. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/897 "2014-04-15T16:31:06Z")
What about a 1943 nickel? By definition a nickel should be made of nickel, no? Simple enough. Hey, so simple it’s almost tautological. But those war nickels had no nickel in them. Did they cease being nickels? Of course not. But who knows, maybe you call those particular nickels “five cent pieces” in order to keep it logically consistent. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/898 "2014-04-15T16:34:10Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > I didn’t say that. My point is that marriage is fundamentally about breeding. And your point is demonstrably incorrect. We allow opposite-sex couples to marry even if they happen to be infertile – and, as was recently pointed out to you upthread, we in fact _require_ some opposite-sex couples to be incapable of breeding before we allow the marriage to go through. > [@](#): > > It means as a formality, which is not the same thing. We do _not_ require, as a formality, that an opposite-sex couple seeking marriage be able to breed; if they brazenly lack that capacity, the marriage proceeds regardless. We _do,_ however, require some opposite-sex couples seeking marriage to be unable to breed. So that’s, like, the _reverse_ of a pro forma requirement: it’s never actually required, but sometimes the opposite is required. You have it exactly backwards. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/899 "2014-04-15T16:38:12Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > It’s an analogy. Do you accept that the copper 1921 peace dollar is not a real 1921 peace dollar, just something that looks like it? If they are both treated as “real” dollars, they are real dollars. You can feel free to call one an “original 1921 peace dollar” and the other a “reprint 1921 peace dollar” if you want to make the distinction, just like you can call it “traditional/opposite sex marriage” and “same sex marriage,” if you wish to further specify, but both dollars are “dollars” and both marriages are “marriages.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/900 "2014-04-15T16:38:29Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > That is not an argument. Do not do this again. Is this a mod instruction? 😕 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=46)