But explain to me again how "acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity" (the only part of this list that clearly applies to heterosexual marriage more than homosexual) benefits society...

I heard this argument used the other day on TV by a woman clearly briefed to avoid any reference to the religion she was covertly representing. as wordy-nonsense arguments go this is quite a doozy

there were references to "thousands of years" of this alleged definition but rarely does one hear of other aspects of marriage that have survived millennia, such as ownership of women, nuptial rights of men that have very recently been accepted as barbaric.

the "underlying biological..." wibble was backed up by the fact that the purpose of marriage is to raise children, which is fine if you're also demanding the banning of adoption and banning marriage for infertile couples.

i do love it when the thinly veiled religious argument continuously flip-flops between its idea of tradition and its idea of science hoping the observer is far to thick or forgetful to realise they're the same lame arguments used to enforce slavery, ant-gay laws, anti-mixed marriage laws, anti-female ordination or any other symbol of their growing irrelevance they cling to