"Shall I felate you with my misshapen blackened teeth, luvvey?"

"Please do, dearest, and I shall think of England while you do it!"

You seriously think that an entire civilization was built on sexual slavery, and the emancipation of it women will bring it down?

Boy this place sure does attract the dark underbelly.

Except when they aren't.

Well, now women have full civil liberties, and that is that.

Civilization will survive husbands not being able to rape their wives. And yes I support a spouse's right to leave a marriage. Women are not chattel, which was the underlying argument for spousal assault.

Why indeed. I have no issue with multiple spouses, though I wouldn't want to be part of such a group.

But one step at a time.

One class: consenting adults

Extrensing marital rights to gay couples is no more creating a new class than overthrowing anti miscegenation laws created a new class. From my point of view, allowingf same sex marriage in fact creates fewer classes.

Sodomy with an infected person is a transmission risk for almost all diseases.

As does vaginal intercoursw. And, of course, many heterosexual coup!es have anal intercourse as well.

In most common law jurisdictions, a religious ceremony has no legal standing at all. The magic in a marriage ceremony isn't "by the power invested in me by God", it is " by the power invested in me by the State of Massachusetts."

Churches' attachments to marriage is historic and I doubt there is anywhere in English speaking North America where a religious ceremony was ever required.

Actually in many jurisdictions thee lack of marital status means even attempting to duplicate the full powers of a spouse in regards to incapacity can be all but impossible to replicate. Even powers of attorney and living wills don't quite deliver you the power in the event of your spouse's incapacity that a marriage license does.

Up until recently beating the shit out of your wife and forcing sexual intercourse on her against her will (spousal rape) was considered lawful and appropriate. Some traditional views just plain suck and we should welcome their demiwey.

This has nothing to do with Marxism, any more than throwing out laws banning miscegenation had anything to do with Marxism.

Historically what constituted a marriage varied from place to place, and even in Medieval times there was no mandate in England requiring a church ceremony. In most jurisdictions in Europe where canon law governed marriage, all that was in fact required was for a couple to declare that they were married, and so long as they lived in that fashion, no ceremony was required at all. Marriage in ancient tienes, save where it involves the aristocracy, where marriage had political implications, wasn't that formalizeds an affair.

Can a goat grant consent?