The natural course

In our religion, it is not allowed to enact a general law that limits the freedom of spouse in having children. Even in the Bible, the first command ever given to a man and a woman was to "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." But then, in reasonable understanding irrespective of any religion, it is permissible to control the timing of births with the intent of distancing the occurrence of pregnancy or to delay it for a specific amount of time based on mutual consultation and agreement between spouses. 'Birth Control', by definition implies regulating birth and certainly not terminating a life.

From your understanding, one would comprehend that an atheist loves himself and his fellow mate instead of God. He accepts only knowledge of himself and knowledge of his fellow mate where he can find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfilment. This is purely a matter of 'religious belief'; it does not undermine the social connotation of marriage. This is the simple reason why an atheist does not contradict the institutional meaning of marriage. It would be ridiculous to indulge into the scientific explanation of procreation of human race through same sex marriage, for understandably there is no need for such explanation. Would the readers wonder how same sex couple would be addressed in a social function? Perhaps, we have to wait for a befitting answer. When a baby is born out of mutual love and care of a couple, he also deserves balance parenting from opposite genders. Taking your argument on gender based parenting, may I reiterate that a father cannot offer the love and affection of a mother and vice-versa, for both father and mother are different entities.

Let us be honest and neutral in contemplating the laid down 'code of life' practised from time immemorial.