here are non religious reasons:

Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:
The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn't completely prevent tearing.
The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside theanus.Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.
The anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal sex may lead to weakening of the anal sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the toilet. However, Kegel exercises to strengthen the sphincter may help prevent this problem or correct it.
The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex can also lead to vaginal and urinary tract infections.



so, with the risks of anal sex outweighing any significant impact on society like procreation does


why is it governments business to endorse, promote, encourage or license it?

its enough to let it be a personal and private choice, IM against government licensing and putting its stamp of approval and endorsement on it,,,

any sex and any relationship carries unhealthy risks

nowhere near as much risk,, all things being equal,


and one RISK of vaginal sex is creating LIFE<, life that will later be a citizen, a potential decision maker, leader, teacher

its in the interest of society to promote and encourage such 'risks' come with the added security we know is provided when those lives are raised with their mother and father,,,,


there is no such monumental interest society has in homosexual activiites....

there are many that say the earth is becoming overpopulated
so that could be a positive to gay marriage

there are many hetro couples that participate in anal penetration
should they be banned from doing so thus jailed if caught

noone said anything about banning anal sex

the issue is promoting it,,,and no , I dont feel government should

it should promote potential parents committing to each other before risking creating a life

I did not say that "people ONLY oppose same sex marriage because of religious belief". I said that religious beliefs were the main reason.

By the way, the Bible doesn't say not to kill. It says not to murder.

nowhere near as much risk,, all things being equal,


and one RISK of vaginal sex is creating LIFE<, life that will later be a citizen, a potential decision maker, leader, teacher

its in the interest of society to promote and encourage such 'risks' come with the added security we know is provided when those lives are raised with their mother and father,,,,


there is no such monumental interest society has in homosexual activiites....

that was one of your reasons to ban gay marriage

so its not a health issue unless you are gay

seems it needs to be a two way issue or a non issue

To Hell with Society!
Society doesn't own the Individual!


Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.


What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues.

The advocates of collectivism are motivated not by a desire for men’s happiness, but by hatred for man . . . hatred of the good for being the good; . . . the focus of that hatred, the target of its passionate fury, is the man of ability.

Mankind is not an entity, not an organism, or a coral bush. The entity involved in production and trade is man. It is with the study of man—not of the loose aggregate known as a “community”—that any science of the humanities has to begin . . . .

A great deal may be learned about society by studying man; but this process cannot be reversed: nothing can be learned about man by studying society—by studying the inter-relationships of entities one has never identified or defined.

Ayn Rand

and moral Relativism is exactly what they need!
What keeps them in Power!