>>14790361Let me see if I can put it better.
IF: population is incredibly vital
THEN: the rate at which population can be increased is limited by the female gestation cycle, which means a few gay men aren't going to sway things one way or the other once you've hit the hard limit that the gestation cycle sets up. If EVERY woman is pregnant as often as is safe, then you're already doing basically all you can to max population and gay people won't hurt that. Furthermore, the rate of pregnancy could probably stand to dip a bit with no noticeable drawbacks.
IF: population is not such a vital concern that it needs to be maximized
THEN: homosexuals don't affect the issue one way or another, because population is either at or close enough to desired levels (or god forbid above them). In this case, you don't need to boost birth rates, so homosexuals are not a problem.
In either of these instances, homosexuals are not a problem for population. The only way they could be is if they achieved majority gene pool share and kept gaining more, which is at best extremely unlikely and at worst completely impossible.