On the other hand, unless an animal rights whacko is on the court, human/animal marriages probably aren't in our future, as there's no way for an animal to give informed consent or agree to the contractual portions of the "marriage.
However, I do disagree with your point on procreation. I believe a man and a woman should be allowed to marry, even if they're NOT able to procreate, either due to biological reasons or age.
But for societal good, then yes, I do agree with you that for the good of society, and humanity in general, that a two parent (M&F) family is the preferential way to go.
Mark
I think everybody agrees with that. From the standpoint of law, the actual ability to have children cannot be the point. What counts is the ability to consummate the marriage, which is (or was) defined as the act of coitus by which the male's organ enters and deposits semen into the female's genital tract.
They had to discuss this in the UK, where of course none of the SS couples could legally consummate a marriage unless Her Majesty's Government redefined intercourse. There was no one definitive act that was "The Marriage Act," by which marriage is legally consummated.
Likewise they had to redefine "Adultery," since there was no one defining act which was "The Adulterous Act."
As BJ Clinton taught us 16 years ago, we've got to the point that we not only don't know what "sex" is, we don't even know what "is" is.
Agree with that statement.
I also think there will always be sad silly queens out there. I don't begrudge them the right to cohabit. Just keep it quiet and behind closed doors. But (addressing them) Don't ever think you can or should ever call it marriage. It is an aberration.