Try immersing your head in it for half an hour; you may change your mind about that.
(I think this may be what foolsguinea was driving at; -water to the exclusion of everything else - is fatal - seems to be in line with the “what if every…” scenario)
Hasty disclaimer; I’m not instructing anyone to go and drown themselves OK? Don’t try this at home.
[backpedalling now]Actually, the purity of the water would be pretty much irrelevant (as davidm rightly points out)
I’d still be single. 
What if we woke up tomorrow and everyone thought they had a right to tell everyone else which sex acts they could engage in? Would they rule out any of your personal favorites? How would we know who was in charge?
L
Yeah, but what if all the world were paper and all the seas were ink?
foolguinea is correct: the dose makes the poison.
But to answer the OP:
As long as women desire to have kids, lesbian couples can procreate via the turkey baster (or through artificial insemination). Male couples could either arrange for surrogate parents, attach themselves to lesbian couples, form Kibbutz’s where parental care is shared, or opt for having no children.
In the short run, population growth would decline, which would be noticed. If it turned negative, there would be a call for a more aggressive pro-natal policy. Environmentalists would oppose this, saying that negative population growth would be a good thing until the population stabilized at, say, 500 million.
Swarmy journalists would site some studies which would show that the real problem is not that we will have a population collapse -that won’t happen for x hundred years- but that we’ll have a demographic bulge that interferes with caring for the elderly.
Environmentalists will respond that we have to raise our savings rate.
Since the only reliable method of raising the national saving rate is large and consistent budget surpluses, this path will not be taken.
Over time, though, large tax deductions would be granted to those supporting dependents. This will lead to a large increase in a particular form of tax fraud and a smaller increase in the birth rate.
More debate will ensue. Maybe we need to spend more on nationalized child care. Eventually we would muddle through.
On the margin, though, a little more homosexuality and little less pro-creating would be a good thing, given the limited carrying capacity of the planet. Roughly speaking.
If I did that I would cease to have ANY opinion on the subject, or on anything else for that matter. But I fail to see what that has to do with what was being discussed. His statement was “Even water & oxygen can be fatal in sufficient purity.” Purity would have nothing to do with whether or not you could drown in it. But let’s not continue this hijack. It’s really not relevant to the OP and I shouldn’t have started it.
That of course, totally depends on how you define “normal.” If you define normal as being different than the statistical majority, than being a male is “abnormal.”
It is also, therefore, abnormal to be Christian. It is abnormal to watch Showtime. It is abnormal to have a college education.
Of course, if you define normal as meaning “normal for that person,” then the normality of homosexuality depends on who you talk about.
IE, for me, homosexuality is normal, and heterosexuality is not. For you, this is likely reversed.
Kirk
Assuming that everybody turned gay all of a sudden, I’d imagine that it wouldn’t take long for some of the penalties imposed on gay people to be revoked. It would be tough to imagine “don’t ask, don’t tell”, for instance, in an all-gay military. But more to the point, it would make gay adoption a legal necessity.
If I had the opportunity to raise a child with my partner in a society that was no longer prejudiced against gay people, where I no longer had any qualms about the legality of gay adoption or gay marriage making the child’s life more difficult than that of other children, then I would do so without hesitation. I’d gladly arrange the adoption however I could, including making arrangements to help a lesbian couple bear children.
I would then attempt to raise the child to the best of my ability. I’ve always thought I’d make a good dad; I think my partner would too. And I think that the instinct to raise children who are better, and stronger, and smarter, and better off than we were is stronger than the instinct to copulate, otherwise the advent of birth control would have had the net effect of wiping out the population. So, I think, if everyone turned gay, the world would continue to turn.
With one extra added bonus thrown in. We’d get to see all the homophobes of the world have to deal with their own self-hatred in a very direct and entertaining way.
**Hayduke Lives!! wrote:
What if everyone were gay? What if everyone on the planet would rather have sex with their own sex? How would we reproduce?**
What if everyone one opened a thread on an interesting topic and then totally ignored the responses or failed to engaged in a debate? Would the msg. board collapse under the weight of the unanswered posts? How would the msg. board keep going?
I trust the argument has been sufficiently refuted to need no additional comments, but I wanted to post here just to welcome Kirkland1244, an old online friend who is one terrific thinker and debater – if, occasionally, a trifle polemic! 
{{Kirk}}
The Gay Guy’s head hurts. 
Hayduke, feel free to click on and read any of the links in my sig. Really - I think it’d be worth your time.
And even I have admitted to being attracted to one and only one woman - Sophia Loren.
Esprix
[sub](OK, Seven of Nine, too, but that’s purely a Borg fetish thing!)[/sub]
Oh, and I’ll also chime in - what does one’s sexual orientation have to do with one’s paternal or maternal instincts? (HINT: The answer would be “nothing.”)
Esprix
I know! I know! “Nothing”.
(kgmm)/(s*s)
Hey Polycarp…
Don’t call me polemic. The only people who should think I’m polemic are scum who deserve to die. 
Kirk