Clayveus misses the point - only the most recent in a long line of points he's missed.
IF you seek to justify discriminatory laws on the basis of a particular factor, arguing that the discrimination is nevertheless acceptable because it is reasonably/ rationally/ substantially related to a legitimate governmental interest (or an important governmental interest, or a compelling governmental interest, depending on the level of judicial review applied in the particular case), THEN YOU HAVE TO APPLY THAT CRITERION/JUSTIFICATION EVEN-HANDEDLY.
On the other hand, if you concede that procreative ability/willingness is only one factor among MANY that will justify a marriage, and that other goals may also serve (such as social stability, interpersonal bonding, social insurance, reduction of poverty, personal autonomy, self-determination, increased societal tolerance, detrimental effects of segregation and second-class citizen status, etc.), then THESE OTHER POTENTIAL CRITERIA/JUSTIFICATIONS MUST *ALSO* BE APPLIED EVEN-HANDEDLY, AND IF THEY WOULD JUSTIFY MARRIAGE OF A NON-PROCREATIVE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE, THEN THEY SHOULD ALSO JUSTIFY MARRIAGE OF A (NON-PROCREATIVE) HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE.
Neither can a marriage where one or both partners are infertile, or where the husband is impotent, or where the wife has passed menopause, or where the couple intends to use contraception religiously (pun intended) to PREVENT pregnancy. Better require tests for all these before allowing hetero couples to marry, and revoke their marriage licenses when the aforementioned predicates cease to hold.
what a joke boyjason! Apples and organges in your reasoning process! You compare abnormalities in some normal people that CAN usually be medically fixed for them to have kids with a TOTAL inability faygs to have kids because they lack the God-given machinery! LOL WACKO!!!