Anti-SSM argument goes from stupid to... what the heck is this?

Yes, but there is, again, a distinction between ‘changing customs’ and a judge making a univocal decision. The deliberate blurring of this distinction is quite disingenuous.

A round and round we go…

But you did not address them.

According to you, there’s no such thing, and can’t be any such thing, as same sex marriage. You have discounted judicial, legislative and voter decisions on the matter.

So one final question and then I’m really done discussing this with you. Under what circumstance would you accept that same sex marriage is a real thing?

And you’ve not addressed 90% of what I and others have said. You first.

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”

There’s glory for you!

Correct, I’m done arguing. Now I’m just gloating.

I have used that quote in one of my papers, and of course you know it’s meant ironically, to show the absurdity of such a position.

Then you should be able to recognize the fact that you’re tried to use this trick dozens of times. Over and over, you say marriage means whatever you say it means.

So … you’re not a prescriptivist when it comes to language?

Do you then agree with Wikipedia that argumentum ad populum does not apply when it comes to language usage?

Do you admit the distinction between succumbing to a barrage of propaganda and natural language change? They are not the same. If you keep telling people ‘everybody disagrees with you’ some people might cave in or get tired of fighting about it. Not me.

Actually, I’m pointing and laughing for the most part.

It’s fairly offensive how easily you dismiss the sincerity of the people in this thread you’re communicating with.

So, because I believe in equality for gays, I’m weal-willed and I’ve caved to propaganda? Not that I hold a deeply and sincere belief. How rude.

It has nothing to do with ‘equality’ and you know it.

Yes it does and you know it.

Heh, didn’t realize it was this easy.

Of course it does. It has absolutely everything to do with equality. And substitute whatever word you want. You still dismiss sincere beliefs and that’s rude.

Sure. I’m still pissed off about “NBC (nuclear/biological/chemical) weapons” being replaced by “weapons of mass destruction”. The former was more descriptive, and the latter is more inflammatory. But that battle was lost a long time ago. I certainly wouldn’t be foolish enough to pretend that “weapons of mass destruction” is a meaningless phrase just because I disagree with the politics of the people who pushed it. And I certainly wouldn’t hang my opposition to particular government policies on the hope that I could convince everybody to go back to the older term. Language moves on.

That’s a truly bizarre statement.
What exactly is it about then?
Are SS couples not seeking equality? If not what hidden agenda do you imagine they are pursuing?

M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn’t.

Dude, you are driving this long-term avowed heterosexual toward a change in sexual preference just to be as far away from your position as possible. And, yes, I realize this isn’t an argument, just an observation.