> However, if one views marriage as a precursor to reproduction -- the historical view of marriage...

The historical purpose of marriage is the exchange/pursuit of status and resources[1]. Reproduction was an inevitable outcome of lack of contraceptives. The idea of reproduction being the primary purpose of marriage is pretty recent.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200505/marriage-...

Historically, and actually still today, if you have actual reasons you can't conceive (for example, if a man cannot get an erection due to permanent and incurable impotence), then yes, the marriage can be declared anulled. Annulment is different from divorce because it makes it such that the marriage never existed at all at anytime. In other words, yes, certain conditions preventing conception can be used to claim that a marriage was fraudulent.

In certain legal jurisdictions, a castrated man cannot marry. While that may not always be true today, it has been the case historically. Prior to the modern day, people did operate under the assumption that those who certainly could not conceive could not marry, but of course, they didn't have the full understanding of conception we do.

> The historical purpose of marriage is the exchange/pursuit of status and resources

Yes, and the purpose of status and resources is to pass those along to your children. Also your article mainly talks about 'love' and marriage not reproduction.

> The idea of reproduction being the primary purpose of marriage is pretty recent.

This is completely baseless. Thomas Aquinas writes about the purpose of marriage as being for procreation. Given that at the time he wrote he represented an organization that represented the majority of moral thought in Europe... it's hard to actually believe these ridiculous claims. Moreover, status and resources were the main pursuit of the rich. The poor still married... usually for kids.

Source: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm

> It would seem that the "sacrament" is not the chief of the marriage goods. For the end is principal in everything. Now the end of marriage is the offspring. Therefore the offspring is the chief marriage good.

Given that Aquinas is also pulling from historical sources (in this cases the Sentences by Peter Lombard), it's extremely likely this idea -- written very clearly in the 13th century -- originated well before then. What's modern is the claim that the chief aim of marriage in previous centuries was status / resources. Everyone in previous centuries understood that the way in which marriage produced those goods was children. A woman from one family marrying into another noble family would have little claim over her new status if the couple were unable to produce offspring. If a man had no offspring to inherit, the status and resources would end.

MORE SOURCES FROM EVEN EARLIER

In the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo clearly indicates in his treatise 'On the Good of Marriage' that offspring are one of three benefits of marriage (along with faithfulness and the sacrament of matrimony itself). In the summa, Aquinas attempts to argue which of these is the 'chief' good of marriage. Thomas believes the sacrament of matrimony itself is the chief good. Now, most here don't necessarily have the religious view of marriage (nor do they need to), but aside from the sacrament, it's faithfulness and offspring that remain. Nowhere there is status and power. And these men are again writing on the predominant moral system of the Western world for the past thousand years.

Going to secular philosophers, Aristotle (from whom Aquinas derived a lot) also consistently writes that marriage is for children. His other aims of marriage are community stability and pleasure. Again, nowhere does status and power appear.

Couples without children can adopt children, regardless of the gender of the parents.

Here's a Utah law firm offering advice on how to annul your marriage should you have found the man you married to be unable to have sex: https://www.isfma.com/law-and-order/when-ending-a-marriage-o...

Here's a review of case law in BC from the 2000s: https://disinherited.com/family-law-matters/annulment-for-no...

Scientifically, one cannot know if you're sterile until you've tried. There's no 'test' for sterility that truly works or that there hasn't been an exception too. Legally, once a marriage is fully consummated, it's more permanent than if it weren't. Historically, a marriage that was consummated could not be dissolved and was considered permanent at that point, so even if you later found out (usually after many years) that you couldn't have kids, the marriage would continue. Similar to how old people stay married.

I'm giving an historical view on marriage. Not saying how things should be. You seem incredulous at this view, but it was the prevailing view of marriage in Europe and the West for thousands of years.

I understand your position. On your point about why people think marriage is a right… I suspect this is because, at present, many rights are coupled with marriage - visitation rights at a hospital being the classic example.