Not with each other.
and have many of the same options available as any infertile heterosexual couple.
Which numerous courts have held as irrelevant. (Whether you like it or not.)
What “basic biology” are you talking about? Want to be more specific?
Oh, you know, that thing thing about sperm and egg uniting to form a separate unique individual.
You write with such passion, but you don’t back up your statements. If you do believe marriage should only be permitted between individuals who can and will produce biological children without intervention, then you must believe infertile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marry. And if you don’t, why? You can’t just say “because!” You have to come up with a reason.
I already gave you the reason. Why don't you look back and read it, and while you are at it, read through the various MAJORITY opinions of the MAJORITY of courts to address this issue.
I agree with you, though, the government may have no business issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That would be a good solution at this point. Take out the word “marriage” from civil unions and leave that to religions. Give opposite and same-sex couples civil unions/domestic partnerships/what-have-you for legal purposes.
Why give civil unions? Why does the government have to endorse any union if the union is not linked to procreation and the existence and survival of the human race. (See; Loving and Skinner et el.)
Claiming “numerous courts have found it irrelevant” doesn’t absolve you from the responsibility of making your own argument. If you’re going to suggest reproductive capability is a prerequisite for marriage, then YOU have to explain why infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry under your own rules.
I’ve got news for you. Sperm and eggs unite when homosexual couples have children too, in just the same way they unite when infertile heterosexual couples children. So, again, what do you mean by “basic biology”? Basic biology is essentially the same every time a child is conceived by any means. What point are you trying to make?
You’re the one suggesting the government needs to be involved in civil unions and marriages, again, on the basis of reproductive capacity. You keep suggesting that, then when questioned, you say, “except I don’t really mean it!” Then you suggest it again. Why do you do that?