Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of your buddies around here, in an eager attempt to prove that same-sex "marriage" is an ancient practice, used to trot out the example of the emperor Nero's "marriage" to a male member of his household staff. Trouble is, Nero's male "spouse" was not only a child, but also a slave who had zero say in the matter. No informed consent there!
A quick Google search turned up this page which uses the Nero example:
"In addition, Roman culture is full of examples of same-sex marriage. For instance, Emperor Nero was married to one of his male slaves in a public ceremony."
The page was written by marriage attorneys - highly educated folk. The best educated apologists for same-sex "marriage" have already dispensed with the informed consent requirement.
That...has nothing to do with my post whatsoever. Why are you bringing up something completely irrelevant to this topic?
You're the one who said something about removing the informed consent requirement for marriage. I responded by arguing that if they did that, then I can declare the both of us married without your consent.
Now I'm waiting for a legitimate response from you. Let's see what you got.
Some of your buddies around here, in an eager attempt to prove that same-sex "marriage" is an ancient practice, used to trot out the example of the emperor Nero's "marriage" to a male member of his household staff. Trouble is, Nero's male "spouse" was not only a child, but also a slave who had zero say in the matter. No informed consent there!
A quick Google search turned up this page which uses the Nero example:
"In addition, Roman culture is full of examples of same-sex marriage. For instance, Emperor Nero was married to one of his male slaves in a public ceremony."
The page was written by marriage attorneys - highly educated folk. The best educated apologists for same-sex "marriage" have already dispensed with the informed consent requirement.
Slaves in ancient Rome didn't have the ability to consent for anything, and since slavery is illegal in this country it isn't an issue for our marriage laws.
"By the time of the early Roman Empire, there were some references to same-sex marriages. The Roman historian and biographer Suetonius reported that the emperor Nero attempted to transform the youthful Sporus into a woman by castrating him. Then he married the maimed boy in traditional rites, and afterward treated him as his wife. (Nero had previously assumed the role of bride and took his wine steward, the freedman Pythagoras, as his husband.)"
The pedophile Nero's "marriage" to his slave boy seems be a common example used by the members of your tribe. No informed consent there.
That...has nothing to do with my post whatsoever. Why are you bringing up something completely irrelevant to this topic?
You're the one who said something about removing the informed consent requirement for marriage. I responded by arguing that if they did that, then I can declare the both of us married without your consent.
Now I'm waiting for a legitimate response from you. Let's see what you got.
Not so fast.
Is informed consent necessary for marriage or isn't it? Why or why not?
Nope I am boring.... A good part of my problem is i am willing to bet $$$ that gays of both sexes who 'marry' will want the feds to invest money into ssm kids by some means...
In other words with all these sex changes tax payers will need to spend on how 2 people of the same sex will get a sex change and still somehow have their own kids egg to egg or sperm to sperm..
Yeah I know you will roll your eyes but in the next 200 years you don't think it would be possible?
Not only do i think it would be possible but I believe it will be common.
But know man will never fly
What are you even on about? None of what you said has anything to do with the topic at hand nor does it even respond well to what I said.
I made a comment about two humans giving consent, signing a civil, secular contract, and being over the age of 18 - why are you responding with such drivel?
Oh and, "But know man will never fly"? I think you meant ," But NO man will ever fly".
Slaves in ancient Rome didn't have the ability to consent for anything, and since slavery is illegal in this country it isn't an issue for our marriage laws.
Same-sex "marriage" isn't legal in most states either. But that can be changed, can't it? If that can be changed, why can't we drop informed consent?
Is informed consent necessary for marriage or isn't it? Why or why not?
Pony up and answer the question.
Actually, thinking about it this is a question for YOU to answer. I brought up the informed consent as a requirement, you brought up the question why don't we toss it since apparently homosexuals want to overrun society and corrupt the sanctimony of marriage (which is laughable at best because you're wrong).
Nice try at the deflection, but since you brought up the question then you answer it - I support equality in this country. It's apparent that you do not. So, Mr.Pilgrim riddle me this:
Is informed consent necessary for marriage or isn't it? Why or why not?
So long as your fun doesn't add to the tax burden i don't really care....
But it all stops at tax funding for things like AIDs and HIV... You get that you just die in peace. Not federal funding.
Do you realize how incredibly rare HIV is? You are almost as likely to get murdered (4.8/100,000) as AIDS (a little higher than that but I haven't done the math) in any given year.
I don't know why you would consider marriage a privilege or defend any other than your own.
But i think marriage should be reserved for people who can reproduce naturally. In others words 1 man and 1 woman period.
Other wise people will marry their dammed pets. I don't believe SSM should be able to have kids any other way than mating. It might be a problem but that should just be their problem not everybody else's.
Now if 2 males and or 2 females can marry and have their own natural born I am good with it.
I bet this won't be very popular.
I don't know where to begin.
What if the woman is infertile? That rules out natural childbirth right there. What if neither is interested in childeren? What if one or both are bisexual? Should they not be allowed to marry? Because currently they ARE
A couple doesn't even need to be married to concieve. A one night stand can potentially lead to pregnancy. lol @ all the wannabe sacredness of marriage and conception. Give me a break.
As for beastility--that isn't legal in the United States. Those who practice it have to climb that hurtle first before talking marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
will want the feds to invest money into ssm kids by some means...
