**TL;DR -- The only benefit to a heterosexual relationship is procreation, which would be more of a burden on society in these trying times.** I disagree with this, because the only "benefit" to a heterosexual relationship is procreation, which we seriously need *less* of in this day and age. There are already too many mouths to feed, and not enough people who care about feeding them. We want to bring more kids into this world without providing for the ones already here? We call those kids "burdens" and tout that "society shouldn't have to support them." But if we're arguing that heterosexual couples are more beneficial because they bring more kids into the world, then we're putting our foot in our mouths, because the only thing more kids would do is put *more* of a burden on society. And for as much as people dream of having kids, they sure as heck don't want to take care of the ones who are already here. In fact, I say that homosexual relationships are more optimal for society, because homosexual couples who want kids are more likely to adopt than heterosexual couples, thus *alleviating* a "burden" on society.

I don't just disagree, but I would argue exactly the opposite. Heterosexual relationships are advantageous primarily for reproductive reasons. High fertility rates are only important these days because of their economic value: Having more young workers to pay for fewer retirees. Economies can change, and an economy based on population growth is doomed to failure. I suppose another advantage of heterosexual relationships is that it forces members of one gender to have to understand or relate to the other. But I'd imagine that is just as likely to end in bitterness and frustration as it is empathy and understanding. Otherwise, in a world where we are not anywhere close to extinction, and where lower populations would result in a higher quality of life, homosexual and other non-reproductive sexual relationships are especially advantageous as they don't contribute to population growth. Bonus points if they adopt. Adopters have to meet qualifications that birthers don't, so adopters are likely more consistently fit to be parents, further reducing the number of children raised by unfit parents or over-burdened single parents. Additional benefits come from the lack of social restrictions that game from birth rates being important. When birth rates were of top importance, social restrictions were put into place, especially with regards to women's sexual expression and economic freedoms. In this case, restrictions on homosexuality are less of a cause and more of a co-symptom. But most of our social disgust towards homosexuality comes from the idea that because reproduction comes from sex, that sex must always be reproductive. Any time we can separate reproduction from sex, we benefit, because we can keep populations under control without neglecting our sexual needs. Humans are an extremely social and extremely sexual species. Our sexuality is about way more than reproduction, as it has important social functions and implications.

Saying a "relationship" is "valid" is a very unclear claim. What's the difference between a "valid" and "invalid" relationship?

Homosexuals have higher rates of anxiety + depression, shorter lives, higher rates of domestic abuse, the list goes on and on. Like all these things they lie on a bell curve so there are plenty of decent gay couples but statistically hetero ones are happier, healthier and do more for society around them. Natural procreation is the simplest way a couple can give back to society and any parent will tell you that parenthood forces you to become more selfless in your outlook on life. All good things.

I disagree strongly. This is rude and homophobic. Yes, we need heterosexuals to keep the population up and keep reproducing - but that doesn’t mean that it’s better to have more of one than the other. I think there should be balence. Homosexuals stop over-population and heterosexuals stop under-population. But homophobics just ruin lives.