The ORIGINAL reason argued for non-married but living together benefits was that they might produce children. It was seen as a way of supporting the concept that a man and woman might produce a child in need of benefits and then the fathers/mothers benifits could be used to that end. (people save the one example, this is about promoting a general umbrella policy regarding production and protection of children.)
It must be this university has a HUGE problem with benefits fraud. This is what happens when the policy is to reward recreational sex.
Maybe in some instances. In this case, and many others, I get the impression that they had to include hetrosexuals in order to avoid discrimination lawsuits when they included homosexual "partners".
So instead they are getting this "invasion of privacy" thing, as if just applying for the "cohabitation" health insurance wasn't pretty much changing "private" to "not so private" in the first place.