I was giving the show mild attention as my kids watched in the living room until I caught this passing quip by a narrator, describing how the Roman Republic was an "extremely advanced civilization:"
But it's a bald-faced lie with purpose.
Here are the facts. Marriage, as an societal institution, was strictly monogamous in ancient Rome, and strictly heterosexual in nature. The laws were structured toward the advancement of its civilization – namely, the production of children who would become Roman citizens. There were never codified laws allowing same-sex "marriage" among Roman citizens. The suggestions that it even occurred at all amount to singular and depraved examples.
Laura Geggel, for example, cites at Live Science that Nero "castrated a young boy named Sporus to make him womanlike" and married him, and that Emperor Elagabalus "referred to his slave, Hierocles, as his husband."
Both examples refer to emperors, bound by no laws and having an appetite for sexual activity with boys, "marrying" those boys. Her arguments for "precedent" of same-sex "marriage" in ancient Rome include an emperor "marrying" a castrated boy and another's de facto "marriage" to a slave. This is hardly evidence of a society that broadly "permits" same-sex marriage.
So why introduce the lie that it was broadly permitted in ancient Rome to children? Because the precedent of an "advanced civilization" practicing same-sex "marriage" is of importance in arguing for its current societal value.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/goodbye_netflix.html
While most of the world struggled to stay alive, the Romans had running water, air conditioning, shopping malls, and same-sex marriage [sic].
But it's a bald-faced lie with purpose.
Here are the facts. Marriage, as an societal institution, was strictly monogamous in ancient Rome, and strictly heterosexual in nature. The laws were structured toward the advancement of its civilization – namely, the production of children who would become Roman citizens. There were never codified laws allowing same-sex "marriage" among Roman citizens. The suggestions that it even occurred at all amount to singular and depraved examples.
Laura Geggel, for example, cites at Live Science that Nero "castrated a young boy named Sporus to make him womanlike" and married him, and that Emperor Elagabalus "referred to his slave, Hierocles, as his husband."
Both examples refer to emperors, bound by no laws and having an appetite for sexual activity with boys, "marrying" those boys. Her arguments for "precedent" of same-sex "marriage" in ancient Rome include an emperor "marrying" a castrated boy and another's de facto "marriage" to a slave. This is hardly evidence of a society that broadly "permits" same-sex marriage.
So why introduce the lie that it was broadly permitted in ancient Rome to children? Because the precedent of an "advanced civilization" practicing same-sex "marriage" is of importance in arguing for its current societal value.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/goodbye_netflix.html
but this author is running around in ideological circles trying to make his case for whatever he thinks are traditional values and why he now wants to dump Netflix.