Marriage

If marriage is just a breeding contract, which would be the reason to restrict it to heterosexual couplings, then childless marriages should be anulled.

Of course there is the religious aspect. In fact, there is primarily the religious aspect. I haven't yet heard of a long-standing religion from any part of the world in which homosexual unions are recognized and always have been. Because such relationships could be assumed to produce no children, there was no particular reason to formalize them. There were no employee benefit plans to qualify for. If property was involved, a will would probaby have covered the conveyance of it. Only as the rules become more numerous do we have to define everyone's status relative to them, such as with hospital visitation or taxation.

When secular governments get into the marriage business the religious side would seem subordinate. To many people, their religion is just some Sunday mumbo-jumbo. Marriage traditions and conventions are just something you do to legitimize getting laid. No one pays close attention to what is said. But of course it is much more than that, whether you romanticize it or not.

It did start as a contract between stud and dam. But it has evolved into a cohabitation contract, generally perceived to have sexual overtones. As such it would seem to apply to any such pairing, regardless of appendages. To have it apply only to male-female relations is unfair unless you stipulate the pair will actively seek to produce children.

The new branch of law enforcement dedicated to this will employ thousands. The cottage industry based on the surveillance tapes will enrich thousands more.