Zapo,

You don't debate with Philo - you hand him enough rope, then laugh yourself silly as the daft bugger hangs himself. It's funniest when he tries to pretend he is an expert in biology and etymology, but his other ramblings are also quite amusing.

Philo,

There isn't a biology course in the world (being taught at a respectable university, at any rate) which has anything to say on marriage. Trust me: they just don't cover it. They do cover sexual reproduction, but that isn't the same thing as marriage. Last time I checked, hedgehogs don't get married. They do sexually reproduce, although God knows how.

But if for arguments sake we accept that marriage is defined biologically, and that the Marriage Act 1961 is just a piece of paper, it doesn't really matter what's written on the paper, does it? Alterations to laws do not change the nature of biological science, I think we can all agree on that. Marriage will simply be one of those words with different meanings in different contexts - in sociological and legal terms it will mean one thing, in Philobiological terms it will mean human sexual reproduction, and in actual biological terms it won't mean anything at all, just like it doesn't now and never has.*

*Direct me to decent biology dictionary or biology textbook - an actual published book, not some dodgy interweb link, which even contains the word 'marriage', let alone defining it the way you have, and I'll eat my words.

Post Script:

Philo,

"So now you are telling me that that you had natural human sexual intercourse 5 times in the past week and you are not married. Obviously you are an immoral person without decent social values, as you call her a girl and not your wife and you have no intention of marriage."

Awww, what's wrong little fella? Sounds to me like somebody's a tad jealous of us handsome young bucks out sowing our wild oats. Not getting enough of Mrs, Philo, eh? Frankly, I'm not surprised.

On a more serious note, kindly refrain from passing your sanctimonious judgement on my values and morals on the basis of what your Priest/Minister/Reverend/Pastor/Cult-leader has told you to think*. My morals are based on the Golden Rule (treat others the way you'd like to be treated) and the Platinum Rule (treat others the way they'd like to be treated), and I'd argue they're a better basis for morality than the ancient tribal customs of a bunch of middle-eastern shepherds.

* The Bible isn't against sex outside marriage, it's against adultery - sex outside marriage when you're already married, which I'm not.

The Acolyte Rizla,
Having never married you have no credibility to be dictating to others what marriage is. You have no sense of loyalty or chastity suitable for mariage, as you just use any willing girl for your pleasure. Obviously the girl does not value herself enough as a wife for only one man

The Acolyte Rizla,
In ancient biological terms - 'the man was joined to his wife and they bore a child'. There were no written contracts, and in many instances no ceremony, nothing more than a family exchange. Once that union had taken place they were husband and wife for life.

Philo.

Once that [social] union had taken place they were husband and wife...it's not "biological". Sex is biological. If they'd been biologically joined for life, they would have had great trouble going about their daily business (without some considerable embarrassment).

Fancy sermonising to TAR that he can't comment on marriage because he isn't married. Catholic priests deliver sermons on the subject all the time, but I bet you wouldn't apply the same logic to them.

Philo,

Having never been gay, you have no credibility to be dictating what rights gay people should and shouldn't have. But fair's fair - I'll stop commenting on marriage when you stop commenting on homosexuality.

Philo, how many men do you think there are in the world who only ever have sex with the one woman? Or women who only have sex with one man? Very few, I'd wager - Christian or otherwise. Besides, who says the girl isn't just using me for her pleasure? Or that it's not a mutually pleasurable arrangement for both of us, with nobody being 'used'?

What on earth are 'ancient biological terms'? Evolution acts slowly, and the biology of ancient humans such as neolithic people is essentially no different to that of modern people.