Actually, the Earth can probably support many more people, but regardless, it’s a Darwinian battle of the genes. You may not wish to pass on your genes but others do, and it is their progeny that will inherit the Earth, not yours.
No, it will be conquered by those who do reproduce.
There was a Broadway play about this very theme a while back, but damned if I can remember its title. The single daughter of a very Christian couple learned their daughter was pregnant and seeking an abortion. They locked her up in the basement, determined to make her carry the baby to term. Then genetic testing showed the child would turn be born “like uncle Stan,” the “sodomite” and black sheep of the family.
You’re mistaken about the pro-choice lobby not talking about “inconvenient” females being aborted. With few exceptions, women’s groups are pro-choice. Naturally, feminists are vocal about women being considered so worthless that they are pre-empted for their gender.
This was also the topic of “The Twilight of the Golds,” which is about a Jewish family. It was on Broadway briefly in 1993 and was later made into a movie.
Perpetuating the species is in the general best interest of humanity, but having kids is not necessarily in the best interest of any particular individual. Even if it’s in everybody’s best interest to have kids, I don’t accept “continuing the line” as a valid one of those interests. Gay children won’t necessarily spread the family seed, but if a parent needs kids, a gay child can do the things the parent needs.
Reproducing the largest number of offspring isn’t necessarily the most advantageous strategy, however. If it was, nature would have already selected for all animals to reproduce like rabbits. Instead, primates generally only have one offspring at a time and invest a great deal of resources into raising that offspring. Who’s to say a country where a large percentage of the population was selected towards homosexuality wouldn’t win the “Darwinian battle”? If children are only conceived through conscious effort rather than accident, more resources would likely be dedicated towards them. In such a scenario, there might be far fewer children slipping through the cracks simply because they’re a more precious commodity. A nation that had no unwanted children might be a very successful nation indeed.
I doubt there really would be a society of any size greater than a commune or of longer duration than a generation that would actively select towards homosexuality in their progeny, but genetically speaking I don’t think my family line would suffer if I had but one child and that child was gay. He or she might very well reproduce anyway, and the chances of an unwanted pregnancy would be reduced.