When a man and a woman marry or live together they do so with the acknowledged risk of a pregnancy ensuing and they may not always want to have a child at the time or maybe never but they do not generally marry for the legal benefits alone.
The homosexuals of today want to marry because they want to reorder society, a disease as old as any plague known to mankind; sure there are some legal benefits that would accrue by virtue of the recognition of their marriage but none that can't currently be granted by one party to the other by law absent marriage.
The business of recreational sex is a bit of argumentative nonsense because in marriage sex often becomes a duty rather than fun and every couple can attest to that if they are honest people.
I was on the verge of developing a nascent sympathy for gays who were closeted out of their fear of loathing but this current bunch are but a batch of buttheads and I wouldn't give you a dime for a dollar's worth of them.
"Folks could start by rescinding their "right" to non-procreative sex and their "right" to have children by artificial means."
Boy, you just lost me.
My wife and I are both 49 and have NO intention of having any more children. We also have NO intention of giving up the pleasure of sex, which is one way we express our love for each other. Are you seriously suggesting we do so?
Friends of ours had a child by artificial means because they couldn't so otherwise. Are you seriously suggesting they would be better off childless? If so, that's pretty sick.