I'm looking to find a balance between the interests of the state and those of its individual citizens. In a heterogeneous society, which all societies to some extent are, this is a complex question. To oversimplify it benefits no one.

And do you really want to equate homosexuality and infertility, which for all intents and purposes is a medical disorder? Is that where you want this conversation to go? It's not where I want this conversation to go. My sexuality is not a medical disorder.

All I'm doing is examining the inconsistencies in your position. You seem to think the ability to reproduce is important, except for heterosexual couples, where it doesn't matter.

I don't believe the intent was to call your sexuality a disorder, it was to demonstrate the dangers of applying rights by class instead of universally.

There's a difference between applying rights and inventing them. The latter is certainly worth doing when it's warranted, but it also strikes me as worth setting a very high standard for doing so, because in a state constituted as ours is, to create a new right instantly overrides broad swaths of existing law and precedent. Such potentially dangerous actions should not be contemplated except in a case where their absence perpetuates a harm so grievous and unjust that nothing less will do.

As I've argued at length in this thread and the comments I've linked therein, I don't think it's reasonable to consider that standard met here.