Suse,
No it isn't,anal sex is practiced among a small minority of homosexual men,the Feminists who run the LGBTI movement say that something like 20% of hetero couples practice anal sex but as with all their "statistics" there's no evidence. Remember when they used to say that 10% of the population was homosexual? In reality it's less than 2%.
Anal sex is a sado-masochistic practice, people do it to hurt, degrade and dominate others or because they are addicted to receiving pain. In pornography it's a prevalent theme but it's portrayed in exactly that light, the reciever is being subjugated and sodomised against their will or against their better judgement.

Jay, if there is no proof re heterosexual anal sex, then what are you on about?

The legal activities going on in other people's bedrooms are no one else's business.
A gay couple having married sex in their own bedroom will ever affect you, so why the carry on?

Its interesting to see homosexuals scrambling for state sanctioned marriages when its popularity with straights is at an all-time low & falling. I get the impression its all about a perception of 'respectability' on the part of the AC-DC set, probably because traditional society has been geared to families & hence good little consumers. No doubt the underlying religious imperative plays a major part too, even for those who claim to have no beliefs. When its all said & done, most people have a family background in one of the multiple religious 'franchises', even if several generations in the past. On the other hand, we have a few christian albeit not religious folk who don't give a rats about a gubmunt stamp on their relationship. Seems to me the latter group have a better handle on what relationships are all about. Is it REALLY critical to have approval of some over-officious bureaucrazies ??

Suseonline, "Can anyone tell me, exactly, what would the legal right for gay marriage DO to anyone else?"

What a switch (if it ever worked, LOL), you are supposed to be putting the case for gay marriage. You cannot do that with any conviction because it is just something that some noisy gay activists want as a gold stamp for their gay love. The feminists and Left 'Progressives' see the opportunity to interfere with a traditional institution they despise.

On top of that, you cannot make a convincing case for any claim of lost 'rights' because the Gillard government abolished any discrimination through 80+ law enactments. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act does not curtail any gay 'rights'. Yet without anything but a mantra repreated parrot fashion, you contradict the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Overall, it isn't what some homosexuals and interfering Progressives want, is it? Australian women and men value marriage as it is and always has been and do not want the Marriage Act trashed. Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. Nothing will ever change that and its meaning goes deeper than the frivolous simplicity of 'love' defined by its opponents. Most advocates for gay marriage are in fact opponents of traditional marriage, so often being caught out sinking their large boots into marriage in the same breath as they propose it for gays. Odd that is. Or maybe it is only to be expected, given the usual suspects.

to be continued..

contd..

Suseonline, "If it was un-natural for anyone to have anal sex, then the penis would not be able to fit into a rectum"

You must be joking, right? Then you go on to argue that since the practice is inflicted on women through ignorance, dundamentalist religions, lack of education, unavailability of contraception (in fact denial of womens' rights) it is OK. Yet in other threads where it often isn't even relevant, you rail against religion and male control of womens' bodies.

All realise that you are the forum's Number 1 expert and advocate for gays (you usually capitalise that word, making it into a proper noun!) and the forum's Number 1 scourge of heterosexual men, who are apparently eternally blameworthy for their violence, control of women and a multitude of other sins (although also say you have some men who love you).

But even so, don't you care enough about women and their health that you give tacit support to what you believe is widespread sodomy of women. What about the health consequences? Or do you believe that all of the reported physical and disease consequences are fabrications by doctors?

Of course women and the broader community are right to be concerned about sexual practices that spread disease and can easily result in infertility, damage to a foetus and even death. Of course the community and health authorities are concerned about what goes on in bedrooms. Think the Grim Reaper advertisement. Aren't you worried about STIs and damage to your rectum?

My "The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act does not curtail any gay 'rights'."

should be,

"The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act curtails any gay rights."