Marriage is no longer an exclusive contract to breed. Traditionally, breeding rights and legal rights over the brood were settled by the marriage contract, but if marriage is to be about love and not a contract to settle breeding rights and husbandry, then marriage includes gay marriage. I do insist that gay couples refer to themselves as other than husband and wife. Both husband and wife are exclusively about breeding.
The argument above is a semantic one, an argument based on the language being a product of culture and reflective of that culture’s mentality. Husband is a term from the science pf animal husbandry, a degree in some universities, and is the science of breeding. Wife comes from the anglo-saxon word wif, which translates in modern English, ‘female,’ as in female of the species, the one that breeds. A husband manages the brood as in horse breeding, the female horse that is used to breed is the brood mare.
Again, if marriage is to be about love and not breeding, then the idea that marriage should exclude gay couples does not make any sense. On the other hand, to exclude gay couples from contractual agreement in the institution of marriage could only be reasonably asserted–although quite irrationally–based on the idea that marriage is firstly and lastly about breeding. I do not think we want to go there. In fact, gay marriage is a feminist cause irrespective of whether any lesbians wish to get married or not.