Would legalizing same-sex "marriage" increase the possibility of sham marriages?

[Darryl1958]

They were all in the same marriage to the same man.

rossum

If that is how same-sex marriage is defined by you and by the people who advocate for it, then I concede you your point, such as it is.

Normally, that goes by the name of polygamy though. It was not what I personally was referring to in the post that you responded to.

In most circumstances, the girls of the harem engage in sex with the man that they are married to, and not with each other. No doubt, that kind of action would please some men though, so in those cases, I am sure that that is how it goes down too. Polygamy is very much centred on pleasing the male of the species.

Anyway, such speculation is more fit for a Penthouse letter rather than a discussion of what same sex marriage and polygamy normally refer to.

 

[BroomWagon]

Yes, definitely, anyone can do this, roommates, etc.

 

[Monkey1976]

Yes. I think you will find that all of Solomon’s wives (and his concubines) were the same sex. Also same sax marriage was allowed (though rare) in pre-Christian Rome. The Christians forbade it when they came to power.

You need to do more research before posting.

rossum

Same-sex “marriage” was empty imperial posturing with no standing in Roman law. Conubium (legal marriage) could only exist between a civis Romanus (male Roman citizen) and a civis Romana (female Roman citizen). Marriage to a foreigner or non-citizen was possible with dispensation. Marriage to a slave was specifically forbidden. “Marriage” to a member of the same sex was, by definition, impossible under Roman law.

We have exactly two examples of Roman same-sex “marriage”: One is Emperor Elagabulus, whose behavior rivaled Caligula’s. The other was Nero. Their “marriages” were just as valid as when Caligula made his horse a senator.

Are these the heroic examples of same-sex “marriage” that prove it’s a good thing?

 

[Darryl1958]

Same-sex “marriage” was empty imperial posturing with no standing in Roman law. Conubium (legal marriage) could only exist between a civis Romanus (male Roman citizen) and a civis Romana (female Roman citizen). Marriage to a foreigner or non-citizen was possible with dispensation. Marriage to a slave was specifically forbidden. “Marriage” to a member of the same sex was, by definition, impossible under Roman law.

We have exactly two examples of Roman same-sex “marriage”: One is Emperor Elagabulus, whose behavior rivaled Caligula’s. The other was Nero. Their “marriages” were just as valid as when Caligula made his horse a senator.

Are these the heroic examples of same-sex “marriage” that prove it’s a good thing?

That is the bottom line for my research too.

There was no legal status to this kind of behavior. It is not as if homosexual activity and homosexual abuse didn’t existed,(only the Iran of the ayatollahs is bereft of homosexuality) especially among those corrupted to the point of madeness by the abuses of their power.
But even among the hedonists of Rome, these kind of ceremonies were held as much as forms of mockery and sham, only to be taken seriously among the most bizarre members of that society.
There was no attempt to normalize what existed as rare behavior.