I mean, the viewpoint these folks operate from is that there’s no need to discuss consent because you should never consent prior to marriage (aka abstinence before marriage is always saying no, so there’s no need to discuss any other answer) and that marriage is always implied consent at all times (so there remains nothing to discuss because now it’s always yes) - the whole idea of talking about consent is built on the implication that there isn’t a preordained, socially determined answer but instead that it’s a question that needs to be discussed.