Homosexuality x Birth rate?

Question

Don't you think that homosexuality should be more accepted and legalized in underdeveloped nations? So less children would be born, birth rate would decrease, the nation could use its money to stimulated education and health, there would be more children's adoptions, etc. The underdeveloped nation would have more opportunities to grow. Am I right or wrong? I'd like to know your opinion about that.

I don't say that homesexuality is the main solution to overpopulated nations, but less people having less babies is something that need to be thought. Homosexual people don't reproduce. Money is better distributed in countries with less population. Would you prefer living in China (overpopulated) to living in west Europe?

Answer 1

Overpopulation is the single most important issue the human race faces. All other issues (ie global warming, war, terrorism, disease) stem from overpopulation. So yes I believe your idea has merit. Homosexuality should not only be tolerated but promoted. Not just in underdeveloped countries.

Answer 2

Of all the things the governments of underdeveloped countries could do in the way of progress, you think legalizing homosexuality (which I did not know was actually Illegal anywhere, source please) is at the top of their list?

Without delving into my thoughts regarding homosexuality, since that is not the question, I would certianly think that there are some other issues that should come first for instance:

increasing GNP and GDP, finding some economic equilibrum and stability, addressing the social ills, developing and increasing production, ending corruption, developing international trade partnerships, encouraging internal investment, encouraging ownership and increasing employment opportunities

I would thing addressing these issues, especially the corruption, would go alot further than encouraging homosexual behavior in getting 3rd world countries out of the dark ages.

Answer 3

I understand what you are saying, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.
So just because the square peg don't fit into the circle, don't use a sledge hammer to make it work.
More than likely the money you speak of is already being abused, and so just because there are less people to take of doesn't mean the money will be there.
We are not the only country that has the problem of greed, and in countries that have dictatorships, guess who gets the money?

Answer 4

Wow. What a way to control the birth rate! How do you change people into homosexuals? That kind of acceptance is going a little too far.

Answer 5

I didn't know being gay was illegal in the first place...lol..l..but yes people should be more opened minded to everything, not just homosexuals.

Answer 6

You expose your liberal leanings when you want less people to be alive. Liberalism has always sought to controll population growth. Stalin with his starvation policies in the Ukraine, Hitler with his mass murder of those who disagree with him, Planed parenthood and their programs to depopulate the underclass, Carlson's silent spring and it's anti-human stance in the guise of environmentalism that has consigned millions to death rather than use DDT to stop insect bourn deceases to save the song birds, and today's global warming crusade against fossil fuels that will slow food production and kill millions of Third worlders through starvation. Homosexuality will be bred out of the human race as more is know about DNA structure and parents will be able to genetically eliminate the code for homosexuality at birth.

Answer 7

It's biological. Acceptance would have no effect on the rates.

Answer 8

For it isn't enough to talk about Homosexuality. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.

Answer 9

homosexuality is not the answer to high birth rates, more abortions is the answer. Make them drive-thru like McDonalds.

Answer 10

I think Homosexuality should be accepted, period. Why should people be defined and their worth be determined by their sexuality?