[Chummy]

More widely published reports instead rely upon a figure five times that, but please keep in mind you are considering the status quo and I am offering the lad (or lass) a hypothetical: what if? What if a species practiced homosexuality? In other words, homosexuality was not an aberration but that which was its accepted norm.

What would be the result?

What happens to your 2% -- or that greater number to which I refer -- if the species is pressured, perhaps politically over many years, to accept the practice and it grows to proportions that do have an adverse affect upon the society, both in its inability to reproduce naturally and the disease that results and spreads from its practice?

By definition, a homosexual cannot have a biological child unless something other than homosexuality is practiced to result in conception.

[Jorge]

By definition, a homosexual cannot have a biological child unless something other than homosexuality is practiced to result in conception.

True. But besides the fact that homosexual parenthood is artificial, the physical sexual characteristics make male-female the only logical and biologically compatible union possible.

This isn't just a question of allowing people to be with the person of their choice, or one of religious conviction but one of demanding everybody accept that the definition of marraige include obviously biologically unnatural unions. It's warped.