# 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:** 7
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/121 "2014-04-11T13:57:03Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Are you unaware of how many cultures have permitted multiple spouses in the past? Or that there are cultures in the modern world with the same custom?
>
> Legal incest has typically been reserved for royalty (Egypt, Hawaii) and since we don’t have royals here that’s not an issue.
>
> I’m also totally OK to restricting marriage to those within the same species (at least until intelligent space aliens show up, at which point we can revisited the issue).
>
> You see, I’m not afraid of change, or of two adults declaring their love for each other. Unlike some people.
Yes, I am, and that’s why I mentioned it. If you want to allow same-sex ‘marriages’ you will have to allow multiple-spouse ‘marriages’ because there is no more support for the one than for the other.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/122 "2014-04-11T14:00:19Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> There is no such thing as ‘same-sex-marriage’ therefore no arguments are needed against it.
Repeating this doesn’t make it true. There is such a thing, in culture, law, and the dictionary.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/123 "2014-04-11T14:00:44Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#):
>
> Well, to quote Melchior from another currently-ongoing thread, _“2000 years ago we had gladiator contests and infant abandonment.”_
>
> And, of course, 2000 years ago, someone would’ve been arguing that we can’t change either of those – or anything else – since being in favor of changing one thing means being in favor of changing everything; would’ve been wrong then, would be wrong now.
I don’t oppose such things. I think they were fine then and should be fine now. I simply wanted to make the point that some people are very selective about citing precedent: they cite it as support only when it is convenient and consonant with their point of view. Otherwise, they say ‘well this is the 21st century’. You cannot have it both ways!
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/124 "2014-04-11T14:04:38Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> Laws regarding adultery, bigamy, etc. have no firmer foundation than custom. They’re also _dumb_ and I would like to see them go away.
Well, I’m just saying they most likely can be challenged on the same basis, and if you want the one you will have to accept the other.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/125 "2014-04-11T14:12:43Z")
> [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#):
>
> Why don’t you respond to the rest of his post?
Because I didn’t feel it was worth my time.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/126 "2014-04-11T14:13:59Z")
> [@TroutMan](#):
>
> And when it comes down to it, the anti-SSM groups will not be happy with anything resembling marriage, no matter what it is called.
It’s pretty obvious it goes further than this. I’m sure most of the people who oppose gay marriage would be happy to go back to the “good old days” when homosexuality itself was illegal.
---
### Author:  [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/127 "2014-04-11T14:16:14Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Believing that the sun revolves around the earth is not a tradition or custom.
Don’t let \*\*Karol \*\* hear you saying that!
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/128 "2014-04-11T14:18:08Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Yes, I am, and that’s why I mentioned it. If you want to allow same-sex ‘marriages’ you will have to allow multiple-spouse ‘marriages’ because there is no more support for the one than for the other.
The law is easy with same sex marriage. Spousal rights exist no matter what the gender, 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.
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/129 "2014-04-11T14:20:09Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> Because I didn’t feel it was worth my time.
No, it’s because there is no valid response you can make to his points.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/130 "2014-04-11T14:20:50Z")
> [@running\_coach](#):
>
> 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.
No, ‘just deal with it’
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/131 "2014-04-11T14:22:58Z")
> [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#):
>
> No, it’s because there is no valid argument you can.
I am under no obligation of any kind to post a reply to anything. It is \*my \*choice, not yours, and no inferences should be drawn from that.
---
### Author:  [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/132 "2014-04-11T14:26:18Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> I am under no obligation of any kind to post a reply to anything. It is \*my \*choice, not yours, and no inferences should be drawn from that.
Of course it is. Your refusal just shows how limited your “argument” is.
You are forgetting that words change meaning over time. Marriage is one of those words. Just recently the word “literally” changed meaning. Now a “real” definition of literally is “figuratively” because so many people were using “literally” that way. Culture changes, and words follow suit. So you either adapt with the times or you get left behind.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/133 "2014-04-11T14:29:00Z")
> [@Living\_Well\_Is\_Best\_Revenge](#):
>
> Of course it is. Your refusal just shows how limited your “argument” is.
>
> You are forgetting that words change meaning over time. Marriage is one of those words. Just recently the word “literally” changed meaning. Now a “real” definition of literally is “figuratively” because so many people were using “literally” that way. Culture changes, and words follow suit. So you either adapt with the times or you get left behind.
I have no idea what you are talking about wrt ‘literally’. I understand what it means and have no experience with anyone who does not.
The ‘natural’ change of meaning has nothing to do with this and you know it. Legal definitions are made by courts and legislation (including popular referenda).
---
### Author:  [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/134 "2014-04-11T14:29:30Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> There is no such thing as ‘same-sex-marriage’ therefore no arguments are needed against it.
This is hilarious. I truly cannot understand someone saying that same-sex marriage doesn’t exist. It’s like saying rap music or deep dish pizza doesn’t exist. You might not like it, you might think it’s distasteful, maybe you want to call it a different name, you might even want laws against it, but to say it doesn’t exist is so crazy.
A few years ago, someone was telling me about how homosexuality was wrong, and part of his argument was that two men can’t have sex, that it was always rape. Later I was wishing I had asked him to explain this, but at the time my mind was just baffled, I don’t know if I said anything.
---
### Author:  [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/135 "2014-04-11T14:36:47Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> I am under no obligation of any kind to post a reply to anything. It is \*my \*choice, not yours, and no inferences should be drawn from that.
Inferences will be drawn
> [@](#):
>
> Lodis v. Corbis Holdings, Inc.172 Wash.App. 835, 862, 292 P.3d 779 (2013):
>
> Lodis fails to cite any legal authority standing for the proposition that a possibly prejudicial counterclaim is grounds for a new trial. See State v. Young, 89 Wash.2d 613, 625, 574 P.2d 1171 (1978) (courts may assume that where no authority is cited, counsel has found none after diligent search); State v. McNeair, 88 Wash.App. 331, 340, 944 P.2d 1099 (1997) (failure to cite authority constitutes a concession that the argument lacks merit). This court is not required to search out authorities in support of Lodis’s proposition. Young, 89 Wash.2d at 625, 574 P.2d 1171. Thus, we decline to consider Lodis’s argument of prejudice.
---
### Author:  [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/136 "2014-04-11T14:37:33Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#):
>
> This is hilarious. I truly cannot understand someone saying that same-sex marriage doesn’t exist. It’s like saying rap music or deep dish pizza doesn’t exist. You might not like it, you might think it’s distasteful, maybe you want to call it a different name, you might even want laws against it, but to say it doesn’t exist is so crazy.
>
> A few years ago, someone was telling me about how homosexuality was wrong, and part of his argument was that two men can’t have sex, that it was always rape. Later I was wishing I had asked him to explain this, but at the time my mind was just baffled, I don’t know if I said anything.
This has nothing to do with homosexual activity, which I do not oppose. Straw man argument.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/137 "2014-04-11T14:42:14Z")
The meanings of words change. Culture changes. Traditions change.
Same-sex marriage is a thing – the meaning of the word “marriage” is changing. The meanings of words come from how people use them – if most people use the word “marriage” to include codified and joined same-sex couples, then the meaning of this word has changed.
If most people include same sex couples in their use of the word “marriage” (which we are rapidly approaching, if we haven’t already gotten there), then it no longer means what you think it does, **Melchior**.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/138 "2014-04-11T14:43:58Z")
And I’ll repeat my question from post #80 (since **Melchior** ignored it):
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, or is there something about same-sex marriage that would preclude it _ever_ from becoming custom?
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/139 "2014-04-11T14:46:47Z")
After discovering that “Don’t let those people get married because ewwww” is not regarded as an actual argument, they’ve fallen back on “Don’t let those people get married because derrrrp”. That’s not regarded as an actual argument either, but it’s pretty much all they have left.
---
### Author:  [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)
#### Post date: [April 11, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819/140 "2014-04-11T14:47:42Z")
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> No at all. Tradition refers to customs, not beliefs. Believing that the sun revolves around the earth is not a tradition or custom.
This doesn’t address a single point raised, and isn’t even close to a rebuttal that your nonsense “we’ve had the same definition of marriage for 40,000 years” argument isn’t an appeal to tradition OR argumentum ad populum.
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> The essence of language is intelligibility. You can’t unilaterally change the meanings of words to justify some action. You cannot call killing someone ‘murder’, for instance, if it is \*truly \*accidental (a child who darts right out in front of a bus, for example).
You have yet to provide any reason why “marriage” cannot refer to the joining of two same sex individuals. There are plenty of usages of “marriage” referring to joining two identical things - why not people?
> [@Melchior](#):
>
> This has nothing to do with homosexual activity, which I do not oppose. Straw man argument.
His point wasn’t about arguments against homosexual activity, it was about absurd arguments, like denying the existence of gay marriage.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=6)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-ssm-argument-goes-from-stupid-to-what-the-heck-is-this/685819.md?page=8)