It seems the dark cancer of intolerance of difernetness is deeper running than I wouild have thought.

While it is nice to say that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, the sad truth is it ALSO exists for political purposes, monetary gain, protection of weakenesses, access to property, and other reasons.

IF you are focusing purely on the individual's postulated couplehood, then the shape of their underpinnings really doesn't have a lot to do with it. Nor should it have any bearing in law, as such.

THe issues that DO have bearing in law reasonably include the legal status of couplehood in terms of social contracts such as insurance, inheritance, and the other benefits of joint life. But none of these issues attached to the notion of marriage have much if anything to do with reproduction. Well, except for "dependents" exceptions in tax codes.

As for the sanctity of reproduction, I would submit that is a belief whose expiration date has comne, considering it has driven us over the 6 billion mark.

A