The funny thing is, none of the first three restrictions (against minors, close relatives, and persons already legally married) are universal. We have no problem accepting these restrictions as valid, even though, throughout history and around the world there have been (and still are) societies which allow one, two, or all three of these types of marriages.
One the other hand, opposition to same-sex marriage is universal. And it is not simply a matter of a societal taboo against homosexuality. Read the history of homosexuality. Homosexual behavior was accepted in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. It was accepted in parts of Africa. It was accepted in ancient China. Spanish conquistadors were astonished to find homosexual behavior among the native Indians of the Americas. AND YET, these same societies consistently defined marriage as a union between male & female.
Yet proponents of same-sex marriage insist on stating categorically that this is the one restriction for which there is no valid reason. No amount of arguing will convince you otherwise. So, I have to ask you, why do you believe those societies which allowed (and even encouraged) homosexual behavior still insisted on marriage being a union between members of the opposite sex? Why do you reject my explanation (that societies universally have this social institution called "marriage", defined as a union between males & females, because societies actually obtain benefits from having this definition of marriage), and what explanation can you offer in its stead?
