There's a lot of discussion and ideas about the idea that gay people are genetic dead ends--life ends with them, and thus supposedly they have no interest in any future society. They might as well be hedonists, the argument goes, and (to be honest) quite a few of them actually are. No good society could possibly have any use for such "self-centered" people.
But it doesn't seem like the conclusion follows from the premise. If life ends with gay people, and if they have no real stake in the future state of society, then the morally right path isn't hedonism. It's asceticism. They should be freegans, consuming as little as possible and living only on those things that others would have thrown away anyway. They should refuse to take the resources that you all are wisely using for the benefit of a future society--which neither them or their non-existent descendants will ever live to see. (I guess they could live on their own productive efforts, and on trades that they make with the rest of the people, but those paths are both suspects because the values are suspect. A gay person's "productive" efforts will all too likely tend toward hedonism. And likewise their trades. They know they're a genetic dead end and what they want doesn't, or shouldn't, matter.)
It's worse than that, too. Way, vastly, unbelievably worse. Suppose that you DO have genetic descendants. How sure are you they'll reproduce? How sure are you that their children will? And what about their children? And theirs? Maybe more people should consider that they too face the hedonist/freegan dilemma. Maybe we all do, because one day, the sun's going to engulf the earth, and in a vast expanse of time after that, the universe itself will experience heat death. The things that you work for will all go away in time. Pretty much the same for everyone.
(Two notes: First, David Hume wasn't exactly a ladies' man. And second, I'm not at all convinced that the immortal soul offers a way out of the dilemma. It might, if it were real, but what evidence would convince me of it? A man rising from the dead is a noteworthy miracle, but there's a non sequitur between that one event and "therefore we all live for eternity." I don't really care to argue against Christianity in general here, but on this one point I don't think it fills the gap.)