Are gay marriage and homosexuality okay because there are gay animals?

The argument by gay rights supporters for the acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage is the following:

Gay rights reasoning:

Premise: Humans have a conscience.

 Premise: Wild animals do not have a conscience.

Premise: Immorality only can exist if a person has a conscience.

Inference: Animals (or at least most) do not have a conscience, therefore their behavior is morally neutral.

Conclusion: Therefore, a human mimicking animal behavior cannot be immoral, since the same behavior is not considered immoral when done by a wild animal.

and/or:

Premise: Only humans can be immoral.

Premise: Behavior observed by animals in their natural habitat cannot be morally objectionable

Premise: Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. 

• Evidence: It has been observed in animal species. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Conclusion: Therefore, homosexuality among human beings is natural and gay marriage should likewise be accepted and legalized, since wild animals practice it and they cannot be immoral.

However, if these conclusions are to be accepted, likewise the following argument should be accepted.

Premise: Only humans can be immoral.

Premise: Behavior observed by animals in their natural habitat cannot be morally objectionable

Premise: Rape occurs in nature in several species. 

• Evidence: It has been observed in several animal species.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm

Conclusion: Therefore, rape among human beings is natural and rape and rapists should likewise be accepted and legalized, since wild animals practice it and they cannot be immoral.

 The same argument and conclusion can be reached with infanticide, paedophilia (book by 'atheist' Richard Dawkins), war, kamikaze/suicide 'bombing', polygamy, cannibalism, and several other strange things.

Will supporters of homosexuality likewise support these behaviors? Of course not. The "because animals do it argument" falls on its face since they refuse to let the sword cut both ways.

However, they might rebut that you cannot compare them since homosexuality is between 2 consenting parties. To which it should be noted that incest, polygamy and sometimes suicide can also be done with consent. So, the argument should have nothing to do with animals what so ever.  Furthermore, why should more developed, more intelligent animals mimic behavior of lower animals? Isn't that NOT "forward thinking" and "backwards"?

NOTE: The video was TAKEN DOWN by youtube censors for 'hate speech' (several years later)! 

Homosexuality and the Genetic Argument

Should the Genetic Argument--"born that way" be relevant in a moral discussion about homosexuality?

No. If we were to judge the morality of homosexuality on the basis of a person's genetic predisposition, it would only be logical to apply this reasoning towards all behaviors.  Some people are believed to be genetically predisposed to being more aggressive which in turn would cause them to be more likely to commit acts of violence.

IF homosexuality is arguably acceptable only the basis its genetic (if it is) then why is not violence likewise arguably acceptable on the basis on genetics? Double standard? I am not comparing homosexuality to violence as a lot of homosexual advocates might over simplify my argument to be, I am saying we must judge acts for themselves, and not look at genetics to justify them.  They might say homosexuality is consensual, violence is not, well if that is the case then how is the genetic argument relevant at all in the discussion of morality? It isn't.

Furthermore, if homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted on the basis its between consenting adult, then shouldn't it be acceptable for two consenting adults to give each other narcotics since its consensual, and doesn't harm others? By this reasoning it might be argued incest, self infliction, and suicide should be tolerated or accepted on the basis if a person if only harming himself and not others, or acting with free will and consent. 

Finally, why should a sexual act be recognized as acceptable by a society that is disproportionally linked to Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and has no real benefit to society as a whole, except PERHAPS as a sort of population control--removing a number of people from the breeding population.  Furthermore, if homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't the open homosexuality with homosexuals refraining from procreating decrease the future homosexual population? This may change though because of things like invitro fertilization.