Simply state that the question is purely in the context of purely heterosexual couples right out of the gate, then make reference to homosexual couples who are also pairing off but are not included in the context of the problem, using the exact same language to refer to both groups but specifying that the question only refers to the heterosexual group.

This approach has the advantage of maintaining the original content of the problem, while re framing the context slightly to be more inclusive.

And you should maintain the classical problem as it is constructed because classical problems, rather in logic or computing or math are useful intuitive tools that are commonly understood across time and culture. Changing the problem to be more culturally relatable to American students because they have a different definition of marriage might well force you to use an example that is less relatable for students from Middle Eastern/African/Asian countries who have different definitions of marriage and might have encountered the problem as it was classically constructed.

The overwhelming majority of people across time and culture understand/understood the concept of heterosexual monogamous pair bonding (in that they acknowledge it's existence) even if they have/had differing attitudes towards homosexual monogamous pair bonding and monogamy in general. If you try to find an alternative way of framing the problem, you run the risk of using a far less relatable example. Others have suggested using an example from biology; what if students are ignorant of that? How about pop culture references...well what if a student is from somewhere where they didn't have that thing you are referencing?

This is why I argue it is better to append appropriate context to the original problem to make it more inclusive, rather than changing it radically in a way that completely removes the concept of heterosexual pair bonding in humans. By doing that you are making more of an effort to connect your teaching with people from other times and cultures who think differently from you but nonetheless sought to use the same problem to teach the same concept while also making the problem more inclusive in your specific classroom.

Simply state that the question is purely in the context of purely heterosexual couples right out of the gate, then make reference to homosexual couples who are also pairing off but are not included in the context of the problem, using the exact same language to refer to both groups but specifying that the question only refers to the heterosexual group.

This approach has the advantage of maintaining the original content of the problem, while re framing the context slightly to be more inclusive.

And you should maintain the classical problem as it is constructed because classical problems, rather in logic or computing or math are useful intuitive tools that are commonly understood across time and culture. Changing the problem to be more culturally relatable to American students because they have a different definition of marriage might well force you to use an example that is less relatable for students from Middle Eastern/African/Asian countries who have different definitions of marriage and might have encountered the problem as it was classically constructed.

The overwhelming majority of people across time and culture understand/understood the concept of heterosexual monogamous pair bonding (in that they acknowledge it's existence) even if they have/had differing attitudes towards homosexual monogamous pair bonding and monogamy in general. If you try to find an alternative way of framing the problem, you run the risk of using a far less relatable example. Others have suggested using an example from biology; what if students are ignorant of that? How about pop culture references...well what if a student is from somewhere where they didn't have that thing you are referencing?

This is why I argue it is better to append appropriate context to the original problem to make it more inclusive, rather than changing it radically in a way that completely removes the concept of heterosexual pair bonding in humans. By doing that you are making more of an effort to connect your teaching with people from other times and cultures who think differently from you but nonetheless sought to use the same problem to teach the same concept. And you can do that while also making the problem more inclusive in your specific classroom.

Simply state that the question is purely in the context of purely heterosexual couples right out of the gate, then make reference to homosexual couples who are also pairing off but are not included in the context of the problem, using the exact same language to refer to both groups but specifying that the question only refers to the heterosexual group.

This approach has the advantage of maintaining the original content of the problem, while re framing the context slightly to be more inclusive.

And you should maintain the classical problem as it is constructed because classical problems, rather in logic or computing or math are useful intuitive tools that are commonly understood across time and culture. Changing the problem to be more culturally relatable to American students because they have a different definition of marriage might well force you to use an example that is less relatable for students from Middle Eastern/African/Asian countries who have different definitions of marriage and might have encountered the problem as it was classically constructed.

The overwhelming majority of people across time and culture understand/understood the concept of heterosexual monogamous pair bonding (in that they acknowledge it's existence) even if they have/had differing attitudes towards homosexual monogamous pair bonding and monogamy in general. If you try to find an alternative way of framing the problem, you run the risk of using a far less relatable example. Others have suggested using an example from biology; what if students are ignorant of that? How about pop culture references...well what if a student is from somewhere where they didn't have that thing you are referencing?

This is why I argue it is better to append appropriate context to the original problem to make it more inclusive, rather than changing it radically in a way that completely removes the concept of heterosexual pair bonding in humans. By doing that you are making more of an effort to connect your teaching with people from other times and cultures who think differently from you but nonetheless sought to use the same problem to teach the same concept.

Simply state that the question is purely in the context of purely heterosexual couples right out of the gate, then make reference to homosexual couples who are also pairing off but are not included in the context of the problem, using the exact same language to refer to both groups but specifying that the question only refers to the heterosexual group.

This approach has the advantage of maintaining the original content of the problem, while re framing the context slightly to be more inclusive.

And you should maintain the classical problem as it is constructed because classical problems, rather in logic or computing or math are useful intuitive tools that are commonly understood across time and culture. Changing the problem to be more culturally relatable to American students because they have a different definition of marriage might well force you to use an example that is less relatable for students from Middle Eastern/African/Asian countries who have different definitions of marriage and might have encountered the problem as it was classically constructed.

The overwhelming majority of people across time and culture understand/understood the concept of heterosexual monogamous pair bonding (in that they acknowledge it's existence) even if they have/had differing attitudes towards homosexual monogamous pair bonding and monogamy in general. If you try to find an alternative way of framing the problem, you run the risk of using a far less relatable example. Others have suggested using an example from biology; what if students are ignorant of that? How about pop culture references...well what if a student is from somewhere where they didn't have that thing you are referencing?

This is why I argue it is better to append appropriate context to the original problem to make it more inclusive, rather than changing it radically in a way that completely removes the concept of heterosexual pair bonding in humans. By doing that you are making more of an effort to connect your teaching with people from other times and cultures who think differently from you but nonetheless sought to use the same problem to teach the same concept while also making the problem more inclusive in your specific classroom.