I’m not the person you asked, but: It takes a village to raise a child. The older I get, the more I believe that. My children have always benefitted from more external input, I’ve helped many around me by taking care of their children, and people who are LGBTQ have helped me in caring for me children. I didn’t think of it that way at the time, but in the context of your question I would point that out simply to say that children thrive with a community including individuals without their own children.

We don’t all need to have children to be relevant. But that doesn’t mean that the people primarily responsible for raising a new generation aren’t doing a difficult job deserving of support, either.

I hope as I age and my children become independent, I can help people with their own children even more. It makes a tremendous difference.

Can you expand on your question? I'm not really sure what you're asking/implying. Being LGBTQ is not a choice, and no, we shouldn't be forcing anyone to have children. But enough people need to be having children for society to continue, and the reproduction rate for LGBTQ individuals is actually not as close to zero as you seem to think it is. And adopting someone else's children to raise absolutely counts as "doing your parenting duty" as it were, since the raising from 0-18 is still the vast majority of the total work.

I would say that's a non factor since there are more straight people total that choose not to have children or can't for some reason.

For that matter, adoption is also an option so we can't look simply at fertility.

Large enough societies can carry people who don’t reproduce be it by choice or because of infertility or being LGBT. Same as we can accommodate a certain number of full time thinkers and artists who otherwise don’t produce tangible things. So it’s a function of what the demographics can handle. Smaller populations might require something like ancient Greeks did.