I had never fully read your comments in depth, only now did I come to know how shallow they actually happen to be.

Mixing apples and oranges, I wonder how an educated person could not see the difference between driving and homosexuality.

Every behavior has a risk associated with it; however, not all behaviors are risky behavior. It is the net effect that counts. Your red meat example is correct, it is another risky health behavior.

Having sex with your wife has some risk associated with it (but the benefit, or fun if you would like, is much more). Having a strictly monogamous relation therefore is a behavior with very low risk. Having polygamous relations, on the other hand, poses much greater risk. The risk rises exponentionally, when it comes to sleeping of one man with another man (again, there might be fun, but the risk is indeed much, much higher).

These imaginary arguments are not so imaginary my dear. If you only could read the history, homosexuality was considered nothing less than a curse. It was a mental disorder until very recently and was removed, in the 70s from the list of psychiatric disorders in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-III). Why do you think this strech of imagination is too far to say that zoosexuality, too, at some point be excluded from mental disorders and may well, like homosexuality, be legalized.