The fact that homosexual couples can't have babies, should be viewed as a pro for our society.

I think this debate is going to come down to the overpopulation issue so I will attempt to explain that pretty well so any people who hasn't had a bio class where the teacher addressed this issue can understand. There is a sustainable amount of people this planet can support. Humans take energy from the environment and translate it into more usable forms we can use. We can only get a certain amount of energy from the earth. We can't do photosynthesis or anything like that but we can eat plants/animals and change other carbon compounds into usable energy. Humanities total population has undergone some huge increases as of late but this is because we are in the midst of a demographic transition. To further explain, when humans discover a way to get significantly more energy from the environment, such as with the advent of agriculture or the industrial revolution, or medicine, population rates explode as the amount of humans the planet can sustain increases. Birth rates increase for a variety of reasons (malthusian, economic, etc.). Death rates do not rise to meet birth rates quickly as death rates depend on when the next generation dies and birth rates depend on the current generation giving birth. Therefore during a transition we can have a huge increase in total population before it levels off. We are in the midst of a transition now. I believe it is predicted to be over by 2050. Either way, the total sustainable population of earth will be met. Whether its met quicker by homosexuals being able to have kids, or its met a tiny bit later if these people cannot have kids, the total amount of humans on earth will be the same. All that a childless segment of the population does is slow the time until we reach our population max. The population problem is inevitable. What China and other countries have done is to address population as if it is an economic (malthusian) issue,sort of like what we do in the U.S w/ cigarettes. A Sin tax or other disincentive is used to prohibit having multiple kids. China is either overpopulated and these methods are quickening the time it takes to reach equilibrium again, or more likely it is underpopulated and China is fighting against something inevitable. They can enforce this policy forever or let equilibrium be reached for free. 2. On abortion we can just not debate this. My abortion-crime points were circumstantial and I don't even believe that there is much causation there though maybe there is. I understand your adoption point and my response is below. 2.b/3. Adoption: Whether a baby is going to be saved from abortion by adoption or is born to be adopted the baby will be less healthy ON AVERAGE than a normally born baby. If homosexuals could have babies normally and not have to adopt then their babies would be healthier on average than the adopted babies. This is due to many things (psychological, medical, societal etc.). Its pretty traumatic for a newborn to be taken from its mother. 3. Homosexuality is somewhat stigmatized due to them being a minority. Funny example, my friend had his clothes pissed on the other night by a big drunken linebacker. He didn't beat him up or make fun of him as the guy was BIG(270 lbs). If homosexuals were a bigger part of the population hate crimes and other forms of discrimination would not occur as often as there is fear of retribution. And since homosexuality is partly genetic, if they could reproduce the world would have a higher proportion of homosexuals. 4. Our disagreement here is on overpopulation. I argue that a decline is bad as we do not live in a cosmopolitan world and the more powerful/represented we as a country are compared to the rest of the world the better off we as individuals of that country are.