Infertile woman are still not physically capable of having children. A man cant have one at all...but is capable of raising a child with a woman or divorced as a single dad? no woman at all? But gay men somehow lose the ability to parent despite (by your opinion) being gay being "behavior" thus making it a choice and inferring without the choice gay men would be "normal"? Thus not really having anything to do with ability to parent.
So would it be fair to say that to you this is primarily an ethical issue?
And being straight IS behavior by the very definition of the word. You can feel however you want about it (this ones for you Lord Kanti) but it doesn't stop the thing itself from being, regardless of your interpretation of what it means or represents (as per LK's Quran verse). It still IS. It just happens to be behavior that leads to procreation. In the instances that people dont use protection anyway. Which adds a whole other layer to the argument.
Dude....we literally have all of human history to prove being gay is NO threat whatsoever to mankind going extinct. People have been gay since day one...dogs do it for god sake...seems pretty common.....and somehow...we have not only survived but multiplied...in some numbers im told
If you have some grievance with unfair
incentivization I for 1 would be interested in exploring that thinking. But only for
both gay and straight where it applies. If its unfair to get a write-off without kids across the board so be it, If it solved the problem.