SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[Jake Starkey]

The last line is what fucks up your whole fevered dream. Gays were never prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex and straight people could never marry someone of the same sex. The law applied to everyone regardless of your proclivities

Btw I like how you claim there's no objective definition of marriage but feel very comfortable saying someone couldnt marry their goat. I'd point out the idiocy of your comment but why?

That is discrimination.

 

[ZenMode]

To the last part you added: No because mortgage and business aren't marriage.

Mortgage and business agreements are nothing but a legally binding contract, like marriage.

Like you said, love isn't a requirement from the government's point of view. From the government's POV, a marriage is just another legal contract.

The govt does decide some people can't enter in a mortgage or a business agreement and as long as they apply it to everyone there is no discrimination.

Right, but you'd be ok with the government saying only a man and woman can buy a house together, right? If the government can dictate the sex of one type of contract they offer, surely they could apply similar logic to all contracts, right?

One man one woman was applied to everyone until you people whined. And sadly too many people give in to whiners.

Voting was only offered to white men until those damn women and blacks started whining!

 

[gfm7175]

You got something right for once. Indeed, that's why you see the word in Latin as well.

... and that's why the word in Latin (maritatus) is also related to other Latin words meaning 'husband' (marītus) and 'motherhood' (matrimonium).

 

[gfm7175]

Good for you Dumber! Legal is the same as legal!

Gawd, could you be any dumber?

Domer the Gomer.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Yes, same-sex marriage did exist in the Roman world, though it was rare, controversial, and not legally recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriage.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Evidence from Ancient Rome​

• Imperial Examples: Roman sources describe emperors like Nero and Elagabalus engaging in same-sex marriage ceremonies. Nero is said to have married a freedman named Pythagoras, with Nero taking the role of the bride, while Elagabalus reportedly married male partners in public ceremonies.
• Literary References: Satirists such as Juvenal and poets like Martial mention same-sex weddings, often mocking them, which shows that the concept was familiar enough to be satirized.
• Terminology: The Latin phrase nubit amicus (“a friend marries”) appears in sources describing these unions, suggesting that Romans understood and sometimes practiced ceremonial same-sex marriages.

Legal and Social Context​

• Not Legally Binding: Roman law defined marriage (conubium) as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Same-sex unions did not have legal standing, inheritance rights, or recognition in official registers.
• Social Perception: While same-sex relationships were common and accepted in certain forms (especially between men of different social statuses), marriage was tied to family lineage and property. Thus, same-sex marriages were seen as scandalous or symbolic rather than legitimate.
• Christian Influence: By the late Empire, as Christianity gained influence, same-sex unions were increasingly condemned, and any tolerance for ceremonial marriages disappeared.

Comparison with Modern Marriage​

• Ancient Rome: Same-sex marriages were more about personal expression, ritual, or imperial spectacle than legal partnership.
• Modern Times: Today, same-sex marriage is legally recognized in many countries, granting rights and protections that Roman same-sex unions never had.

In summary: Same-sex marriage ceremonies did occur in the Roman world, especially among emperors and in satirical literature, but they were not legally recognized and often viewed as scandalous or symbolic rather than legitimate unions.

 

[Into the Night]

Mortgage and business agreements are nothing but a legally binding contract, like marriage.

YARP

Like you said, love isn't a requirement from the government's point of view. From the government's POV, a marriage is just another legal contract.

YARP

Right, but you'd be ok with the government saying only a man and woman can buy a house together, right? If the government can dictate the sex of one type of contract they offer, surely they could apply similar logic to all contracts, right?

YARP

Voting was only offered to white men until those damn women and blacks started whining!

YARP

It won't work, Void. Try to at least stay with the conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

... and that's why the word in Latin (maritatus) is also related to other Latin words meaning 'husband' (marītus) and 'motherhood' (matrimonium).

Kinda hard to be a father or a mother if they are the same gender and have no children possible!

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, same-sex marriage did exist in the Roman world,

Not possible.

though it was rare, controversial, and not legally recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriage.

No such thing as a 'homosexual marriage'.

 

[Into the Night]

Evidence from Ancient Rome​

• Imperial Examples: Roman sources describe emperors like Nero and Elagabalus engaging in same-sex marriage ceremonies. Nero is said to have married a freedman named Pythagoras, with Nero taking the role of the bride, while Elagabalus reportedly married male partners in public ceremonies.
• Literary References: Satirists such as Juvenal and poets like Martial mention same-sex weddings, often mocking them, which shows that the concept was familiar enough to be satirized.
• Terminology: The Latin phrase nubit amicus (“a friend marries”) appears in sources describing these unions, suggesting that Romans understood and sometimes practiced ceremonial same-sex marriages.

Legal and Social Context​

• Not Legally Binding: Roman law defined marriage (conubium) as a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Same-sex unions did not have legal standing, inheritance rights, or recognition in official registers.
• Social Perception: While same-sex relationships were common and accepted in certain forms (especially between men of different social statuses), marriage was tied to family lineage and property. Thus, same-sex marriages were seen as scandalous or symbolic rather than legitimate.
• Christian Influence: By the late Empire, as Christianity gained influence, same-sex unions were increasingly condemned, and any tolerance for ceremonial marriages disappeared.

Comparison with Modern Marriage​

• Ancient Rome: Same-sex marriages were more about personal expression, ritual, or imperial spectacle than legal partnership.
• Modern Times: Today, same-sex marriage is legally recognized in many countries, granting rights and protections that Roman same-sex unions never had.

In summary: Same-sex marriage ceremonies did occur in the Roman world, especially among emperors and in satirical literature, but they were not legally recognized and often viewed as scandalous or symbolic rather than legitimate unions.

There is no such thing as 'same sex marriage'.

 

[ZenMode]

YARP

YARP

YARP

YARP

It won't work, Void. Try to at least stay with the conversation.

The fact that you don't like what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm not sticking with the conversation. It just means what I'm saying exposes the irrationality of your position.

 

[domer76]

I've already mentioned it. Fetch

Nope, you haven’t cunt. What’s the compelling reason?

 

[IBDaMann]

... and FlipTheBird for Tbird.

This is so fitting, but I have to hand it to Tbird for picking something and sticking with it.

 

[IBDaMann]

You think mocking the disabled is funny.

Mocking you, one specific individual, isn't mocking a class. You are not an engineer or a computer programmer. Ask me how I know.

Then same sex marriage exists.

... except where it doesn't

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks for agreeing.

You routinely lie in this way. You are the deaf boy who cried "Wolf!" ... and couldn't hear himself.

 

[EdwinA]

But the destructive nature of this homosexual behavior remains.

Their mental illnesses and sexual fetishes make them walking public health menaces as well as a threat to young male children.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Oh, don't forget the terrible threats MAGA pedophiles are every day to young American girls as well as young boys.

 

[IBDaMann]

Oh, don't forget the terrible threats MAGA pedophiles are ...

Who are they?

 

[Maze]

Faggots don't care about marriage, it's just about sticking their asses in the face of normal people, and hopefully getting to adopt harems of little boys for fun and grooming..

The fact that it is even an issue is just more evidence of how weak and stupid society has become.

Trump don't care about marriage, it's just about sticking his ass in the face of normal people, and hopefully getting to adopt harems of little girls for fun and grooming..

The fact that it is even an issue is just more evidence of how weak and stupid society has become.

FIFY

 

[Maze]

Their mental illnesses and sexual fetishes make them walking public health menaces as well as a threat to young male children.

Trump's mental illnesses and sexual fetishes make him a walking public health menace as well as a threat to young female children.

FIAFY