Hello Smedley, Thank you for answering so concisely and civilly.

Just a couple of points; in my link further up the thread,I cited figures from Denmark, Norway and Sweden, countries which legalised homosexual unions up to twenty years ago.....these countries show the take up of homosexual unions to be very low in percentage terms compared to heterosexual.
The figures also appeared to show that the few homosexuals who opted for Union or Marriage, did so mainly for financial and benefit reasons rather than the traditional reasons, like "providing a stable environment to bring up children"
The researchers seemed to come to the conclusion that this amounted to "redefinition of marriage"

On civil rights and health issues, many here say that civil rights should be given to all equally regardless of health issues, but that does not happen in the real world....people of different sexes who engage in incest are forbidden by law to have sexual intercourse, to marry, or even to join in civil union, because of "related health issues". Mating between mother/offspring, father/offspring is extremely common in nature

These people are denied their "rights" because of "health issues", while the homosexual health figures on life expectancy, hiv/aids etc are equally bad, or worse.

So as I have been saying for months "rights" are not universal, but conditional. Denial of rights also applies to other groups who are deemed unsuitable, like people who are suffering from addictions or severe psychiatric problems.

This state of conditionality seems to blow a huge hole in the "gay rights" argument?