[AnAmericanMother]

I don't see anything in regard to homosexuality or homosexual marriage in this article. Did I overlook something?

This sort of extended family is certainly more common in rural than urban households, but it has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. A certain segment of Roman society, aping the upper class Greeks, did countenance relationships with a catamite, but a casual reading of, say, Suetonius, will demonstrate that the Romans did NOT look on it kindly and would never have permitted marriage. I faintly remember a scandalous story (and it may have been in Suetonius) about some extremely femme Roman young buck going through the form of marriage with his boy toy, but it wasn't valid and it was held up as an example of how low the morals of the upper class had sunk . . .

[longtermmemmory]

I just found it odd how in this period when the left is trying to breakdown the definition what is marriage and what is family.

It is just beyond coincidence that the Mass. opinion adopts a concept of law that excludes children as the basis of marraige. The American Law Institute model divorce code project (ABA division) has portions in which a non-blood person could claim rights to a child (ie homosexual lover). This is not exended family but jut affiliation by non-blood reasons. (ie sexual gratification)

conspiracy no, but definitly all pushing in the same direction.

[Siamese Princess]

faintly remember a scandalous story (and it may have been in Suetonius) about some extremely femme Roman young buck going through the form of marriage with his boy toy, but it wasn't valid and it was held up as an example of how low the morals of the upper class had sunk . . .

Didn't Nero "marry" one his boytoys -- I can't remember the if this is true or the details.

[HIDEK6]

but a casual reading of, say, Suetonius

LOL

Yep, I was just casually reading Suetonius the other night...