The arguments made by the NO campaign are very bit as stupid as those proffered by the YES campaign, two sets of social misfits and lunatics arguing over an issue which doesn't exist outside the ever shrinking humanist milieu. The really amusing aspect of this "debate" is that it's really just an extended argument within the husk of European Christianity, the puritanical NO campaign is beset by the heresy of the YES campaign, they both believe in the same principles of equality, fraternity and justice but represent two extremes of the faith.
So now we have a third and even less constructive aspect to the "Marriage Equality" debate, added to the cynical moves to use the issue to unseat the prime minister and the spurious claims by a few homosexuality advocates the whole unseemly mess just flows farther and farther round the S-bend and on to it's ultimate and rightful destination.

I am a Darwinist and believe that evolution is about propagation of the species. Hence homosexuality is unnatural by definition. As it seems to be a product of a genetic fault, rather than environment, we need to encourage homosexuals not to breed children. We are already on the path of breeding out genetic malformations by aborting foetuses where such can be detected. So far homosexualty cannot be detected in the womb.

Outrider,"So far homosexualty cannot be detected in the womb."
So what does that tell you?
I'm an atheist, I don't believe in equality so the solution I'd propose is a new act of parliament via a "Same Sex Union and Marriage Diversity Bill", a separate category of spousal union to be recognised in by the state.

//Hence homosexuality is unnatural by definition.//

By definition of what? You can't just say 'such-and-such is such-and-such, by definition' without actually defining at least one of the terms.

//As it seems to be a product of a genetic fault, rather than environment, we need to encourage homosexuals not to breed children.//

A curiously persistent 'fault'. There is an obvious selective pressure against such a trait persisting - those that inherit the trait are unlikely to naturally sire or bear children. Without some sort of selective pressure in favour of homosexuality it is unlikely the trait would persist; genetic drift is not sufficient to account for it's survival.

There are many theories as to what this selective pressure might be. There is some evidence to suggest that females who are more likely to give birth to homosexual sons are more are also more likely to give birth to more fertile daughters.

It's the propagation of the species that is important: if the genes that produce gay people allow for better survival of straight people, and most of those of straight people go on to breed... have you read the Selfish Gene?

Toni,
Homosexual men were useful to society in the past, as soldiers, sailors, herdsmen etc, men who lived on the perimeter of society but acted as guardians to the farmers and their families. Western man has been neutered by Christianity, particularly since the 19th century, gays haven't been immune to this process either, put 'em back in uniform and let 'em loose on ISIS I say.

Outrider,
I am interested in how you will distinguish Homosexuals who breed from heterosexuals who won't answer your survey questions. Any homosexual who breeds has already defeated your criteria for isolating him/her from the "breeding" population. The seemingly maladaptive strategy of "not breeding" while assisting a breeding relative has been discussed in a very accessible manner by Richard Dawkins, and more thoroughly by others more qualified. The particular internal cognitive reasons why individuals don't breed are irrelevant if their labour helps the tribe or clan, and if they *do* breed, how will you argue their unfitness to do so? Proponents of "eugenics" (and "law") historically display spectacular failures to separate "what I like" from "what is genuinely advantageous".

Rusty