Well no. We can draw the line at informed consent. To enter into a contract both parties must be able to understand what they are agreeing to - animals as smart as many of them are just not capable of performing informed consent.
And increasing the number of people performing in a marriage contract can’t be changed because some things really can’t be split, for example, if we look some guy with three wives, winds up in the hospital in a coma - who makes the decision about his care? What if one of those wives disagree about the treatment?
Me, I’m an agnostic on Gay Marriage, it’s not going to make any difference in my life, and as a Conservative, I really don’t care what two people decide to do with their lives.
But you are defining the post gay marriage unions in terms of present day contract definitions.
These go out the window once you redefine what marriage is.
The limit of two in a contract will not be absolute in marriage, and “contracts” can be entered by any number of people now, but marriage is accepted and defined as one man and one woman. Nor will it legally be possible to not allow bestiality, because it is all about love, man, and besides, who are you to judge and to impose your morality?
We had a social compact regarding marriage that worked for 5,000 years that defined mutual responsibilities and benefits. Like breathing, what further change is needed to something so basic?
A change to that basic definition will open the floodgates to all kinds of intended and unintended consequences to society. And these consequences will invade your town and society eventually, whether you agree or not, and it will change your life and how you live.
If all we need are judges to determine how we should live, talk, and interact in the social contract, let’s get rid of all the politicians—they are unnecessary.