They can adopt, as Zoo said. Plus producing children is not the only way to contribute to society. In fact children might cost society more than immigrants.

Many heterosexual relationships also don't produce children. Should we condemn those too?

"Immoral" depends on what you regard the moral authority. I tend to use the Tanakh (Bible), but I reject its teachings when I don't understand them.

I see no immorality in homosexuality if it is practiced in fixed relationships and away from me.

"Wrong" is even worse a term. What is "wrong" about homosexuality? What's the supposed goal that homosexuality fails to reach?

And "unnatural" it is not. It is quite natural, like eating bacon, and many animals practice it. In fact it is morality that is unnatural, it is forbidding acts that is unnatural.

Hate to disappoint you that pleasure is the better world.

In Italy.

They ruled Israel for a while, executed Jesus, then took over his sect, remained one of the churches that derived from it, made it their state religion, and still run the largest church in the world.

Thank you, KFC.

That's what I was gonna say, but you beat me to it.

Rome eventually fell into such a poor state that anyone who wanted to could take them over. Kinda like the French (joking).

No, but there's no potential to have children. There's no fairness in restricting the same ceremonies to only those who are the top candidates. However, it is not the same ceremony.