What constitutes a marriage?

If the situation or definition of "marriage" changes, this will be "the big one", or "the start of it all". This will effect every one of our decedents, friends, neighbors and all. This will mean the gay and lesbian community will be able to marry and carry on as a "married couple", group(s) or communal marriage will be available, the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" will be allowed to practice polygamy, The and so on and so forth, yadda-yadda-yadda. For some reason, I can foresee some sick freak in Southern California suing the state because they won't let him marry his mother or dog or something like that, but that is off the topic at hand. IMHO, I see that the term marriage (Merriam-Webster's current definition) will have to be modified to "breeding pair", or even better, "Reproductive Dyad". Even all the government and social rules and laws will need to be changed to assure that procreation will be subject to "reproductive laws". Yes, a lesbian couple can have a child without any interaction of a Y-chromosome human, but does it constitute a "reproductive dyad"? (I really like the term, "Dyad", it fits perfectly***). Matter of fact, why not just change it now. Make the term "marriage" an oxy-moron in itself?!? I know that Bridget and I do not judge our relationship by the definition of one word. We judge our relationship by our commitment towards each other. I have no problem saying Bridget and I are classified as a "Interminable Reproductive Dyad". Who cares what the title is, as long as the facts are clear?!? My parents can be classified as "Interminable Reproductive Dyad", They are coming up on their 50th anniversary as a Dyad. The term "marriage" can then be changed in definition to "the legal and cooperative joining of two or more human beings" (or what ever makes the social liberals & lawyers happy). That way, it is a temporary legal term so everyone can get "divorced" from the other (or others) in their marriage when ever they want. That makes the contract or marriage have no legal binding ramifications. After all, that is what is in the minds of the people pushing for this movement isn't it? The ability to "live free of moralities chains", or "Free love" (or what ever other term you can come up with). Then "Reproductive Dyad" would take over as the legal and conceptual (no pun intended) union between one man and one woman. There is no way to alter it. Example; and apple can be a title, but is it a Red Apple?, a Green Apple?, or Yellow Apple? You can't be sure. On the other hand, a "Manatees Trichechus" is so specific, that you can not define it as anything but a Manatee, Seacow, or "Big gray mammal that swims around in Florida's waterways" (and at the Cincinnati Zoo). Evolution of the species has progressed to this point, and we as people are going to have to put up with one hell of a change coming, either way it goes. Anyone one want to throw their 2¢ worth in? I would appreciate that.