I've had a vasectomy; I don't even entertain worries that I will be prohibited from marrying due to my chosen method of contraception.
Your effort to divert the discussion into rare and obscure conceptualizations shows an agenda to divert attention from the realities at hand, namely that the degenerates are seeking to destroy the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman, as a means to empower their degeneracy. Keep helping them and you will be seen for what you defend.
I think there's a disconnect here.
1) I responded to Rogueleader's statement that marriage was for every child to have a mother and a father.
2) I responded asking about those who cannot have children and how they fit within RL's definition of marriage.
3) RL stated that they could serve as a role model for others and would be allowed to be married.
Intent of the first post was asking for RL opinion based on a different set of facts (infertile couples). My other post stated why this was important to me. IE, if procreation became a requirement for marriage it would leave many other straight people out in the cold.
Why would I be concerned? It would leave myself or future wife out in the cold as marriage does afford some rights and privileges.
If legislation is going to be pushed, then multiple factors have to be considered before passing anything. To do any less will create a legal monster that will take years to sort out. During that time who knows what can happen and may slip under the wire?
I am truly sorry that someone who advocates a smart and resonable approach to this is dismissed and labeled.