# Fact: SSM is out, SS Civil Unions are in. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034 "2014-05-09T06:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/141 "2014-05-12T19:57:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because they were not equal. It might make a better analogy if they changed the system so that anyone could sit anywhere they wanted on the bus, but for whites, they were called “seats on the bus” but for blacks they were called “bus seats”. > > Regards, > Shodan And that’s equal-ish, but not very separate. I’m not going to play Lets Take Turns To Mangle Each Others’ Analogies. As others have been at pains to try to explain, there’s no reason for ‘separate but equal’ arrangments to be made, other than to perpetuate an inequality, even if only subtly. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/142 "2014-05-12T19:58:08Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > The word “marriage” is somehow powerfully fraught with meaning and completely arbitrary _at the same time_. That’s another thing this thread has in common with the last one. And pretty much every other thread about the subject, of course. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/143 "2014-05-12T20:52:16Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > And lots of places pre-DOMA actually too. Remember, a lot of states had nebulous wording regarding marriage -especially the sex of those to be married- prior to knee-jerk reactionism following the DOMA. Minnesota, where the first lawsuit was made, made NO mention of gender of the parties. But suddenly “it’s always been one man and one woman”? No. That’s revisionist history there. Yes, because in was unfathomable that something outside of man + woman would be entertained. You’ll notice that those statutes, to the best of my knowledge, also didn’t stipulate that the participants in said marriage be alive. But now that we’re falling down this rabbit hole… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/144 "2014-05-12T20:52:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Dude, it was your wording. You tell me. _Brown v. Board of Education_ from your cite says > [@](#): > > To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. So civil union would not be “separate” in the way that physical segregation was. [QUOTE=The Hamster King] What I love about Shodan’s position is the glaring cognitive dissonance: “The word ‘marriage’ has such a wealth of historical connotations that it should not be applied to same-sex unions”. [/QUOTE] Since you put that in quotes, no doubt you can cite the post where I said so. > [@](#): > > The word “marriage” is somehow powerfully fraught with meaning and completely arbitrary at the same time. Actually it appears to be **Czarcasm** who is assigning arbitrary, derogatory meanings to terms like “civil union”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/145 "2014-05-12T20:54:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What in _your_ marriage will change to your detriment if same sex couples can also be married? Will you think less of your wife? Will she think less of you? Is it less special to the both of you unless you can find a way to deny it to others? Can you please dispense with the king of straw men. The argument isn’t that it will change someone’s marriage today, but that it will change the meaning of the term over time. You don’t have to agree with that, of course, but save the straw, would. Conservation and all that. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2014, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/146 "2014-05-12T20:57:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you please dispense with the king of straw men. The argument isn’t that it will change someone’s marriage today, but that it will change the meaning of the term over time. You don’t have to agree with that, of course, but save the straw, would. Conservation and all that. The meaning already has changed. The dictionary has adapted, as has the law in many places. The rest of the country is just catching up. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/147 "2014-05-12T20:58:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you please dispense with the king of straw men. The argument isn’t that it will change someone’s marriage today, but that it will change the meaning of the term over time. You don’t have to agree with that, of course, but save the straw, would. Conservation and all that. In what specific way, and what evidence do you have that it would do so? If you want to go back down that dark “separate but equal” road you better have more than wild speculation fueled by ugly whispers and unfounded fear. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/148 "2014-05-12T21:01:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you please dispense with the king of straw men. The argument isn’t that it will change someone’s marriage today, but that it will change the meaning of the term over time. You don’t have to agree with that, of course, but save the straw, would. Conservation and all that. The argument seems to be that it is somehow to one side’s detriment to call their relationship “civil union”, although no one has been able to say exactly how. Apart from the “he might be thinking something I don’t like when he says it” but I don’t see how that harms anyone. In a way it might be like the clamor from people about my signoff. “You need to be stopped from doing that, because you might be thinking something that I don’t like when you do it.” 😃 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/149 "2014-05-12T21:02:10Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Having people say that marriage is so important that we dare not ruin it by allowing the gays in, then saying that it isn’t a suggestion that the gays are gross or anything, just that they ruin and destroy marriage and make straight people not want to marry, is one of the stupider arguments I’ve ever seen trotted out here. Tell me, does calling a group The Navy disparage The Air Force or The Army, or The Marines? If so, how? How about this, does calling one group Rangers disparage the group called soldiers? Again, if so, how? As you can probably see, drawing a distinction does not mean one is disparaging either of the groups. It’s just acknowledging that there is a difference. Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called sailors, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. No? ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/150 "2014-05-12T21:09:27Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me, does calling a group The Navy disparage The Air Force or The Army, or The Marines? If so, how? Is it your assertion that civil unions and marriage are as different in function as the navy and the army? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/151 "2014-05-12T21:09:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In what specific way, and what evidence do you have that it would do so? If you want to go back down that dark “separate but equal” road you better have more than wild speculation fueled by ugly whispers and unfounded fear. Prescience. 🙂 I’ve always stated that this is my fear, and one that I think is reasonable. And most important, one that we needn’t worry about since there is another mechanism by which SS couples could enjoy all the legal benefits and privileges of marriage. I see it as the best of both worlds. You are by no means forced to agree with me. Nor me with you. You know, I can imagine us having a debate back in 1960 or so about the pros and cons of welfare. And maybe one of us would have gone against the liberal grain and said that it was a bad idea because of the long term effects. That it would make people expect that the government was a choice in lieu of work. That it might break up families, etc., etc. And no doubt someone would have said, “But you can’t PROVE that will happen. So how can you be so cold and callous as to not want to help people who need it?” And then we’d let forty years go by and who would have been right? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/152 "2014-05-12T21:09:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me, does calling a group The Navy disparage The Air Force or The Army, or The Marines? If so, how? > > How about this, does calling one group Rangers disparage the group called soldiers? Again, if so, how? > > As you can probably see, drawing a distinction does not mean one is disparaging either of the groups. It’s just acknowledging that there is a difference. Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called sailors, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. No? The difference has already been explained several times in this thread and the other one about different things having different names making sense, and same things having different names not making sense. While the both of you and the few that are left sit in your corner and snigger about “winning” word games, this marriage battle, the _real_ battle, will eventually go to the rest of us. My dear friends will be able to marry, and stupid arguments like yours will not be able to take that from them. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/153 "2014-05-12T21:09:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me, does calling a group The Navy disparage The Air Force or The Army, or The Marines? If so, how? > > How about this, does calling one group Rangers disparage the group called soldiers? Again, if so, how? > > As you can probably see, drawing a distinction does not mean one is disparaging either of the groups. It’s just acknowledging that there is a difference. Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called sailors, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. No? Why should gay couples have to accept something different? They’re entitled to the same thing that straight couples are entitled to. And it’s people who oppose same-sex marriage who are pushing the issue of “protecting” marriage. They’re the ones who are running around saying the word marriage has a special value. All the rest of us are saying is that if the word marriage has a special value, you don’t have exclusive claim to it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/154 "2014-05-12T21:10:47Z")
> [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](#): > > Is it your assertion that civil unions and marriage are as different in function as the navy and the army? Obviously not. My point is that two different terms are employed to described to similar functions. And neither disparages the other. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/155 "2014-05-12T21:12:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you please dispense with the king of straw men. The argument isn’t that it will change someone’s marriage today, but that it will change the meaning of the term over time. That’s _your_ version of the argument. You do not speak for everyone who opposes SSM. [According to an article on Marriage Resources for Clergy.com](http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles007.htm): > [@](#): > > Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. I know you don’t agree with them, but they agree with you. > [@Shodan](#): > > The argument seems to be that it is somehow to one side’s detriment to call their relationship “civil union”, although no one has been able to say exactly how. Are you ever going to get around to explaining why they should be called different things despite having legally identical rights and privileges? Don’t get me wrong, strategically you’re wise not to explain because you can’t. But for the sake of consistency you should actually try. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/156 "2014-05-12T21:14:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me, does calling a group The Navy disparage The Air Force or The Army, or The Marines? If so, how? The better analogy would be to say that the Navy, the Army, and the Marines are part of the Armed Forces. The Air Force are part of the Military Resource. They are treated exactly the same, but every time you mention the Armed Forces you also have to mention the Air Force separately. There’s no reason for it except that the Air Force came last and to include them in the Armed Forces could potentially devalue the Navy, Army, and Marines; although no one can articulate why. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/157 "2014-05-12T21:14:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If same sex couples aren’t worthy of marriage, then _any_ substitute terminology used to describe what they have is derogatory. It is “not quite marriage”. It is “not really marriage”. It is “something less then marriage”. _If_ all other aspects but the name are equal, then the name can only be derogatory by definition. In your mind, “homosexuality” inferior to “heterosexuality”? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/158 "2014-05-12T21:17:01Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > The better analogy would be to say that the Navy, the Army, and the Marines are part of the Armed Forces. The Air Force are part of the Military Resource. They are treated exactly the same, but every time you mention the Armed Forces you also have to mention the Air Force separately. There’s no reason for it except that the Air Force came last and to include them in the Armed Forces could potentially devalue the Navy, Army, and Marines; although no one can articulate why. No, that’s a poorer analogy. Why isn’t it it simply: Air Force::Navy Marriage::Civil Union ? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/159 "2014-05-12T21:17:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In your mind, “homosexuality” inferior to “heterosexuality”? In my mind I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034/160 "2014-05-12T21:20:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In my mind I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. It’s a very simple question. One that you should be able to answer very easily I would think. If you disagree, what do you find difficult about it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fact-ssm-is-out-ss-civil-unions-are-in/688034.md?page=9)