>>"Is the act of sodomy practised exclusively by homosexuals or do heterosexuals also practise it ?"

Unfortunately, I have no statistics on that.<<

Sodomy is practiced by heterosexuals. I've seen the video evidence.

Statistics are understandably difficult to come by.

Cheers,

Tony

Regardless of whether sodomy is practised by some heterosexuals or not, the rectum was never made for penetration by a penis or any other object. There are risks of mechanical injury. As well, the anus is full of bacteria. It is rated as the riskiest sex,

http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

People choose to indulge in all manner of ill-advised behaviours. Given the hugely increased risk of STIs such as HIV from anal sex and particularly with bisexuals, women should be protecting their lives and future children by refusing sex in such cases.

A good argument could be made for making it obligatory for anyone who practices bisexuality to declare that to his proposed sexual partner, such is the risk to the otherwise unwitting woman. It is simply not good enough to wear a condom because it can come adrift or fail.

While all agree there should be tolerance of homosexual preferences, society and especially vulnerable children should not be sledged to 'love' the sexual practices that go with it. The intolerance of Tolerance by Don Carson, is worth listening to,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PVJlnvVeSM

onthebeach

science goes out the window when it comes to wanting to condone perversion. Science then becomes fashionable when wanting to rip a country off with a carbon tax. This arguement is about emotional blackmail and trying to justify the unjustifable by bully tactics. Marriage is simple between a man and woman. Always was and always will be.

Well yes, it has been confirmed a number of times that the will of the Australian people is maintain the Marriage Act as it is. The manipulation of the media by the 'Progressives' is anti-democratic. When will No be accepted as No?

On divisive social issues like this we have to ask ourselves is it good for our society, is it bad, or of no consequence either way?
There is backing in all three categories, plus a fourth - the 'I don't care' apathetic segment.
Those backing the 'good' say it is a human rights and anti-discrimination issue, making everyone equal in the eyes of the State.
Those backing the 'bad' say it demeans marriage as we know it (or is an affront to it, from a religious faith point of view), and has child-rearing and social-structure implications.
Meanwhile the State sits on the fence, calling it a 'conscience' issue.

But, what is the potential objective of the gay lobby?
If 'marital union' between non-heterosexuals (with virtually all the attendant rights of a 'marriage' under the law) is insufficient to satisfy the interests of the gay lobby for 'equality', one has to suspect that there is really a second agenda, an interest vested in secrecy.
My assessment is that this undeclared agenda may be to open otherwise restricted access to surrogacy and IVF services, and at the expense of the State. Now, is this a social/societal question, or an economic one? It may be both, since general access to surrogacy is also currently in question, but why so? From a social/societal, economic, legal, or ethical standpoint - or all of these?

Perhaps it just comes down to 'family'. Marriage is in decline, divorce and single-parentage increasing, and many children caught in the middle, including young impressionable children.
The statistics for heterosexual partnerships are not good, but those for non-heterosexuals are demonstrably far worse.
So, what could be done to improve marital stability, or is this even in our interest, or that of the children?
Gay 'Marriage' - beneficial, or an un-needed and potential further risk to an already eroded concept of marriage and of 'family'?
You know my answer.

It is hip to have an Ellen friend and soooo very 'Progressive' to promote something that irks Christian churches and undermines that cultural inheritance from Europe and from England in particular that is so hated by the Left.

The Gillard government is adamant that it removed all discrimination against gays through over eighty changes to legislation. No-one was consulted of course. It was all done in the back rooms, which is typical for this government.

'Progressives' and gay activists, none of whom can claim any majority of support from even gays themselves for the intrusions of the State into gay relationships through de facto legislation, must be congratulating their own cleverness over bullsh**ing people into believing there is discrimination where there isn't, and the government itself says not.

Now a conscience vote is mooted by Progressives and activists who cannot accept prior democratic decisions. No conscience vote is necessary because on 14 September 2013 the Australian electorate gets to clear the garbage out in Canberra. Unfortunately some Greens in the Senate will continue until another poll can remove that dross too.

The clock is ticking