And here I was hoping you'd have a few more actual statements that would help trigger my memory about the topic.  However, I suppose I could expand on the homosexuality being a form of population control thing.

It seems like it would be a reasonable thing to expect since homosexuals have a lower chance of having children, but a problem arises when society is put into the mix. For example, if a homosexual was born in a small tribal community, where it is expected that they will produce children, they will likely produce children regardless of them not wanting to. It hasn't been until relatively recently (the past hundred years or so) where homosexual only relationships have become more acceptable. I'd mention homosexual couples have children through artificial insemination (as a few of our members have done), but that's really more of a "modern times" issue, not relating to population control.

Of course, we also have to realize that there are better forms of population control enacted by nature. There is lack of resources, disease, and I suppose we can toss in natural selection as well. The lack of resources and disease have an increased chance of occurring if there are too many people present in a community. If a community rapidly outgrows the resources surrounding them (for this I'm ignoring the possibility of droughts causing famine) then the population will drop until it can be sustained again. Similarly, the more people that are present in a community, the higher the chances of a deadly disease rapidly spreading throughout the populace. If homosexuality was a form of population control then it would be rather counter-intuitive as it would (in theory) still produce more individuals placing a strain on food/water, and increasing the likelihood of disease. 

If we were to view famine/disease as a form of natural selection, then it further erodes the idea that homosexuality is a form of population control. Homosexuality does not offer anything that negatively effects the survival of the individual. The only thing it does is potentially limiting the chances of that individual producing offspring, but they're still a surviving portion of the population. If anything, homosexuality would be an extremely indirect form of population control, since it is not guaranteed to actually "control" the population.

see thats why it was mentioned in the Bible because they were in a time of war ahd needed to reprduce. 

no i meant the "wont someon please think of the children."
im no expert but i can onl speak from experiance.
as a kid i kindof liked girls but hated girly things. Pink annoyed me. I was a tomboy.
i knew i liked girls in a funny way when i saw Tee-la from He-Man.
she was my 1st crush. Circutbraker from transformers was my first real sexual fantasy. Iwould have been arround 9 or 10.
i cant say i ever had a Hetrosexual crush.except trying to force one on my self.
Sorry Lion-O. 

The population controle thing want my idea i only braught it up.

Just thought that I'd drop on and say that I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, so behave everyone

Well I don't plan to start tossing out insults etc, and I imagine Sully won't either. 

But I had sooooo many hurtful things to post!

Not really but I'm sure I could eventually think of something...

Bah nevermind.

Awwe i was gonna call Warden a knobjocky too.

I would imagine that modern medical science offsets this, but you're also making the mistake of assuming that a homosexual has a greater chance of producing a homosexual child. I know of a number of members here and on the BSN that are lesbian  and have had children through artificial insemination. Of course, just because the parents are homosexuals does not necessarily mean that their children will be as well. There are also numerous anecdotes of gay men that married a woman and have had children, and their children don't have a higher chance of being homosexual either.