"Finally, someone tells the truth. Frankly, I can find nothing wrong with the statement that Dr Keyes made."
Look, I like Keyes, and I agree that his remarks were misreported and distorted. But, taken in their own terms as a logical argument, they are still questionable. He is saying that the only possible to enter a marriage without possibility of procreation is selfish hedonism. But infertile or elderly, post-reproductive people often marry because they mutally care about each other and want to share life's experiences. Such reasons are different from "selfish hedonism".
Obviously, the remarks are limited to a particular context. For one to read 'elderly marriage' into his comments on QueerUnions is a stretch, to say the least.
I don't think Keyes would necessarily imply that those who can't have children shouldn't have sex; to my mind the message is that people try to accept the pleasure of sex while deliberately evading their duty to procreate are selfish hedonists.
Of course, liberals would argue that people (especially those in the middle class) have no duty to procreate. But unless people in the middle class average at least one child each (i.e. two per couple), the middle class is going to die off. And given that there are many people in the middle class who have zero, the break-even required average for married couples would probably be more like three.
Of course, liberals want to destroy the middle class, so discouraging them from having children fits quite well with their plans.