If one believes in an omnipresent god, would it need to reproduce?

I understand any dialogue about 'god' or 'goddess' to be about a unified one and all and nothing, the undefinable whole, infinity, etc, and that any gender label only exists because we do not have a word for that that does not have a gender label.

To believe in a small pantheon of predefined semi-omnipotent wizards is not different than believing in one transdimensional, time-traveling, omnipotent wizard.

Or are you talking about the concept of yin and yang? masculine and feminine? To give and to receive?

I married her.

Godesses existed before gods.

Hmm...define "reasonable" as it concerns religion. It is never going to be completely consistent. My socialization reference is Christianity and the Bible, which, depending on your chosen translation, has a token scriptural reference that refers to God in the plural, male and female just once, referring to the creation of humans as "male and female, we created them in our image." Other translations have glossed over that phrasing, doing away with it entirely and making that passage more consistent with all the rest, which are strictly male-identified. Genesis chapters one and two, regardless, still have different and conflicting accounts of creation, and it is one that just speaks of "mankind" as being created in God's image, male and female, while chapter two has the more ridiculous version of man being created alone--despite God having figured out how to make all the fish, birds, and animals reproduce just fine--then, as an afterthought, going "Oh, oops, 'man' is lonely; what should I do about it? Oh I know, I'll make this here woman thingy, and her sole purpose for existing will be as companion and helper to man, who is my 'real' pride and joy." (yes, awfully impressive mistake for an omniscent creator) If anyone can figure out how any of that is reasonable, they've got quite the capacity for suspension of disbelief. But, hey, we are talking about religion.