In that your argument is such that morality and practicality are one, the "homosexual debate" is a cornerstone to your argument, and is therefore a perfectly reasonable topic of discussion.
There is a difference between cornerstone and example. I am disappointed in such a weak strawman.
You say, essentially, that homosexuality is unnatural and that it is impossible to produce offspring (I assume this is your argument against homosexuality). So is a barren woman who nonetheless marries acting immorally and impractically, since marriage, on a practical and moral level, is to pair a loving man and woman together to produce offspring and raise them?
It is
an arguement, but yes. Barrenness would not be established until years later, so that example is irrelevant.
Is a homosexual couple that chooses to adopt a child acting less morally or more morally? On the one hand, it is even more unnatural and thus, in your view, less moral, for two men to raise a child together as a homosexual pair than it is merely to be a homosexual pair. On the other hand, the two are serving the function of marriage while simultaneously adopting a disadvantaged youth. Or is improving the livelihood of one mere individual simply treating a symptom and not a cause and therefore impractical and immoral?
Less morally, since they are assisting in passing on unnatural/immoral/impractical lifestyles through learned behaviour. This does not, of course, guaruntee that the behaviour will be learned, but the odds are increased. To argue otherwise is to argue from ignorance.
Improving a situation is generally in the eye of a beholder. Western Civilization has raped, pillaged, and burned half the globe, supposedly bringing "civilization to the savages". I doubt the Native Americans, Irish, etc. agree even to this day.
@V5: Bigot may as well fall under Godwin's Law, since it's use is inevitable whenever disagreements on subjects like this arise. I don't hate homosexuals. I disagree with the lifestyle choice, and frankly feel pity for them, just as I do for the self-inflicted homeless, etc. Turn your bigot comments to the KKK and the Black Panthers, or Westboro Baptist.
It's a misconception that the primary goal of the sexual drive is reproduction. People cathect onto certain objects for a plethora of reasons; the sexual orientation of a person is formed over a long period of time. If it's "unnatural" to become a homosexual, it's just as unnatural to become heterosexual. There is no universal teleological aim of sexuality. From birth it's associated with certain pleasurable sensations, and the objects that provide/influence these sensations serve to mold the subject's sexual orientation.
TBH I loled at this whole paragraph. I disagree, and consider any possible evidence you might bring to back these suggestions up as junk science. I'm sorry bro.
The return of the means of production to the people is a very Marxian argument.
Returning means of production? You are over thinking this. I am merely advocating that one guy (or small group) can't monopolize a limited and unreplaceable resource(land) which, by default, enslaves everyone.