Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

I believe you are mixing things around. In my second post, I specifically stated that we were debating in the realm of biology, genetics, evolution, and the human species. I established this because you started off talking about genetics and how homosexuality was backed up evolutionarily. You still have not yet given an explanation as to why homosexuality is an evolutionary good, an I understand that you THINK the fact it exists is good enough, but it isn't. I already argued in a counterpoint that homosexuality could be a biological anomoly or flaw. IF you are correct in your hypothesis, this homosexuality gene that keeps growing will eventually take over a greater and greater percentage of our population until most of the world expresses homosexuality. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it breaks down like this: If you are right in your hypothesis, homosexuality will be the downfall of man and your point will be lost. If you are wrong in your hypothesis, homosexuality is probably not determined by the mechanism you suggested, and your point will still be lost. That having been said, you provided some justification as to why homosexuals are good for our SOCIETY, even though we have been arguing about evolution, biology, and genetics. "1. Gay men form stronger unity in the armed forces allowing for greater discipline and thus cause the society in which they are born to triumph in wars and thus procreate." I disagree. There is still quite a bit of controversy with homosexuality in general and even more so in the armed forces. Though you may argue that gay men are more unified, that would isolate them from straight men. This would hurt unity in general Besides, homosexuality is everywhere. You argument, if it had been correct, would just mean that all countries have better armies. I don't think war is good for society. "2. Because of their unique perspective in life, they more effectively help bridge arguments and conflicts in their families, allowing for less turmoil and more success and proliferation." I disagree. This is a generalization. Many homosexual men have just as much stress and drama as straight men. I would argue even more so. Homosexuals have to deal with stigmatization and persecution, and I bet they have many conflicts with their families. If anything, they have enough turmoil in their lives. Having homosexuals in the population doesn't help the population in general, but they may not harm it. "3. Gay people, because of their orientation, encourages parents with the means to have more children then they might otherwise have and thus introduce more educated people into society. (Aka, we want rich people to have more children since their children will be more likely to be educated and a positive element in society. the presence of homosexual children will encourage rich people to have more children to compensate)" I find this to be a very poor and slightly ridiculous argument. I don't think a rich person would ever think "Ahh, I am rich and gay people don't have children. I believe I'll have one extra child since I won't be contributing much to overpopulation". People have children if they want children. I don't think that in this country, people concern themselves with overpopulation. And I also don't think that rich people have more successful children. My parents are middle class and I'm much more intelligent than a lot of those rich pansies that go to ivies by handing in their last name and money for a new building instead of a college application and transcript. Those people eventually die in car crashes or from ODing.