1. Gender is a spectrum. Due to a poverty of gravitas, I am going to say that in human anatomy between 'lady parts' and 'boy bits', there is a spectrum of gender identities.

2. Sexual orientation too spans a spectrum.

3. Family units too span a spectrum..from two parent monogamous unions to polyandry to polygamy..from single family family units to same sex parental units etc.

4. And yet, offsprings can be produced by two sets of DNA data..facilitated by two sets of reproductive units..one of them female and the other not(all life begins 'female' as default setting until SRY turns on or off..somewhere in the sixth week after conception thereby determining if baby is XY or XX or has mutations)...each one may belong anywhere in the above mentioned spectrums. This is our unaltered biology.

So.

Nowhere did I suggest that homosexuality is a 'chosen' sexual orientation.

But homosexuality necessarily..by definition..makes the creativity of assumption #4 irrelevant. (With possibly the one exception of transgender family units)

However..what I DID mean to communicate was that those in a same sex unions creating family units with children is smaller in percentage than those in 'traditional' marriages.

To $ incentivize the bearing of children in a resource constrained world is monetary madness.

The opposite makes more sense. To incentivize the child less is rather rational. I wouldn't go as far as to say that unbridled population explosion should be penalized.

To have children of ones own is a choice. It's not a right. Choices have consequences. Rights have responsibilities.

I am just wondering why choices have to be subsidied.

I hope expanded the few sentences to throw more clarity upon the progression of my thought process.