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

Lets see what I can think up. First off lets agree not to debate whether homosexuality is inherently good or bad. Lets just talk about the lack of having babies being a pro. Homosexuals can have kids btw. They can get artificially inseminated, donate sperm, hook up with or marry someone of the opposite sex, etc. I assume you know this and so we'll just assume that homosexuals have kids less than heteros and that this is good or bad. That's the debate. 1. Overpopulation I am skeptical about the whole idea of overpopulation. Sure we tax some resources more heavily as there are more of us but speaking from a biologists viewpoint, overpopulation is a temporary thing. We, as living beings, get a certain amount of energy from the earth. We have increased this energy through industry, agriculture, etc. but every time we do the birth rates and death rates level off fairly quickly as we adjust to our new biological niche. If homosexuals could have kids then the amount of sustainable humans wouldn't be any higher or lower. We would just reach this level more quickly. Therefore homosexuals not being able to reproduce doesn't even affect overpopulation. Hence that argument should be thrown out unless you can defend it better. 2. Abortion A. Who is to say abortion is inherently bad. If anyone ready freakonomics the central theme there is that abortion has decreased overall crime. The argument is that crime is directly related to poverty and that somehow poorer people benefit more from abortions. I forget the mechanism, whether poorer people have more abortions or abortions aid poorer people more, or having a baby costs more for a poorer person (in regards to spendable income) but the point is that abortion can be great on many levels. More and cheap abortions = a richer/smarter/more healthy average population B. My second point here is that poorer couples are more likely to put babies up for adoption. Poorer couples have kids that had worse pre-natal care and they have to go through all the psychological issues related to "changing parents" so each kid who is adopted is worse off than an otherwise normally born kid. 3. Cognitive Dissonance If homosexuals could have more babies or than or as many babies as heteros I think the world would be better. There would be less heteronormativity or discrimination against homosexuals. Also, the average adopted kids are worse off than the average normally born kids as shown in my argument above. Therefore, if homosexuals could have kids these kids would be better off physically and mentally than the adopted ones. This has all sorts of benefits such as lowered crime rates, health care costs, etc. 4. The fall of the west. The west has increasingly become urbanized over the years. Homosexuality is higher in cities than rural areas, probably for developmental reasons. There are also more reported homosexuals in the west per capita than the rest of the world. The west has a rapidly declining birthrate somuchso that it is shrinking in population size when immigrants are not counted. The west has many homosexuals and many cities so if these people could all procreate our population wouldn't be declining so much. And a country that isn't shrinking has plenty of benefits I'm sure we can agree on .