[MrEdd]

It's a simple matter, really. If your worldview had no faith-based philosophical underpinnings, i.e. is not firmly and consciously grounded in Judeo-Christian belief, then you have no basis on which to argue against homosexuality. The world has accepted this because it no longer has any basis on which to reject it.

Now there is a stupid statement if one has ever appeared on this board.
The health hazards posed by anal sex are easy to point out.
So is propagation of the species.

Your post, while utterly lacking in any sort of intellect is really high in homosexual advocacy.

[CitizenUSA]

I see you beat me to it. One doesn't have to have faith-based opposition to homosexuality to argue against it. Only in a bizzaro world would anal sex be on par with natural, dare I say normal, intercourse. If anal sex is normal, then why the need to use a condom? There's no risk of pregnancy. Maybe it's because because the anus is not meant for intercourse, and anal sex has very significant health risks, risks that aren't completely eliminated even by monogamous homosexual sex. Why? Could it be because it's unnatural? Well, yeah.

[Oberon]

Eh... Apart from any higher purpose, life is all about risk vs. reward, and you reward yourself with whatever you like to do with your body as long as you are willing to accept the risks. If you start from the assumption that your body is a collection of highly fortunate chemical reactions, then why shouldn't you do whatever feels good?

You're not going to change anybody's mind on this point by coming at it from any kind of top-down argument. In other words, pointing out that homosexuality is bad for the nation simply isn't as compelling as the "two consenting adults" argument, and might make you look like a prig in the bargain.

By the way, I hope you noticed that I answered you without calling anyone names.