My answer: I feel like homosexuals..like heterosexuals who choose to remain childless should be rewarded for not burdening a resource restricted planet.
Let me give you an example with cat. If allowed to keep breeding, a cat can have three litters in one year. Each litter can have anywhere from 4-6 kittens. A cat goes into heat at age 1 and if feral, can have kittens for at least 5-6 years. That's minimum 60 kittens to a max of over 100 in its lifetime. And each of those 60-100 kittens can have that many kittens of their own.
Overlay that kind of geometric progression on human population. We live longer. Our reproductive period is for almost half our lives and for men, it's more. Our planet has finite resources.
What gives us the right to keep on reproducing? Because. Human rights. Etc.
But when encourage it? Why incentivize it? Why penalize those who do not add to the numbers by dismissing them from any benefits whatsoever regardless of the immense benefits they confer to society at large.
Why should they be rewarded? Because it is expensive to raise children. It's a social cost. It would inconvenience those who don't see value in children.
How about that? I am not taking it personally. I am..in fact..trying to use objective/non emotional language to the best of my ability as I realize that this is a sensitive issue.
Let's take your example of homosexuals...why should they get some reward from society for not creating new citizens?
There are cases where people, through illness or accident, are infertile, and that is awful. That said, I'm willing to be that the set of people who are involuntarily infertile (e.g., physically cannot reproduce) is much smaller than those who aren't.
Anyways, again, the core question is--what is the reason for rewarding people who don't carry out that most basic function of citizens, which is to make more citizens?
You seem to be taking this all rather personally.