| Grey Acumen said: That's a cute little tidbit, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the point I made. If there is or ever was a constitutional right to drugs, it was never covered by the constitutional right to bear arms. The issue is with the attempt to legally redefine a term that was established through religion. And if you're tryign to argue based on something that was established during teh roman era, please point me out to where two men or women were actually "married" and not just living together. I don't recall examples of any official ceremony being used to celebrate the union between two people who could not have children, as the typical purpose of weddings like that is to ensure that the children have both the father and mother working together to raise them. Personally, I don't even mind if gay people call it marriage, but it does need to be established that the legal recognition of a gay union does not require any religion to recognize it. |
Sure look at Marcus Aurillius Antonious for an example. However most people didn't have ceremonys in ancient Greece and Rome.
Ceremony's weren't seen as needed to legalize a marriage. Only nobles usually had an actual wedding ceremony. It's hard to even point to greek and roman ceremonies because of this. Let alone same sex ones. The only "problems" lie with the fact that we legalize marriages and bestow so many rights on married couples for no real reason.
The fact that they had to make gay marriage illegal would likely mean it was legal, no? I mean the law specifically said "Gay people can no longer get married." (Paraphrasing obviously.)
I've heard Marcuus Martialias talks about such marriages in his poems as well.
