The same sex couples, of what is normal behavior in our species ( and other species ), its also found in greater volumes once a life/form becomes overpopulated. I think its natures way of saying " we have reached our limits, and the models shows this maybe a factor, as we grow in ever more greater numbers.

The question is, why are more and more people turning that sexual way?

There must be a trigger.

I believe people turn that way because that's natures way of saying, Iam full or too many......and when a spices is under populated, we see these same life forms getting down business of breeding, when the space of opportunity gives room.

We just maybe UN-evolving. When looking at the facts.



What governs nature, we might never know, but there are cases to back this model.

cactus

@Irate Goldfish:

...My comments were cryptic: Prior to holding any firm opinion on marriage for homosexuals, I believe all people have the need to clarify a modern-day phenomenon of the high profile, achieved objectively or otherwise, and presented to society as the “norm” by the homosexual lobby, which , judging by your comments, you are a part of.

...It is not unimportant to unearth as a precursor to the question of marriage of the sexually aberrated, the logical explanation for the sudden incidence of rampant homosexuality which pervades society at all levels from top to bottom; it is a modern day social phenomenon screaming for an answer, but never given one.

...Homosexuals are self imposed hermaphrodites, either physically or emotionally or both: And as such, either deserve derision or help; which is it to be; and is marriage really an answer for all society, to the social dilemma of the phenomenon of rampant homosexuality? No.

...While the majority of society get along with their daily chores such as walking their favourite daughters down the aisle to wed a lifelong sweetheart of the opposite sex, raise a family and basically do what most of the rest of us do best, live a normal life in a normal manner! We, the normal folk, are asked to question, by the homosexual lobby, “why should the marriage vow remain in the exclusive domain of “normal” mainstream society”? The answer is obvious, homosexuality is a social illness that needs no encouragement!

Iam no bigot, however the numbers are growing. WHY?

cactus

A very sensible, lateral and reasonable argument thank you Blaise.

@ Irate Goldfish

Reckon we agree for the most part. Though I’m not sure your a ‘age of consent’ argument is the last word on the subject.

Different countries recognise different ages at which minors become adults. And, in many societies, ‘consent’ is defined in ways Australians wouldn’t accept. Arranged marriages are common world-wide; consent might be an agreement between elders, without input from the parties being married. My understanding is that such marriages can’t be performed here, but are usually recognised as valid if performed in accordance with the law of the relevant foreign jurisdiction.

Polygymy is permitted under Islamic law. Half of all marriages in Senegal involve multiple wives. What, then, is the marital status of a Senegalese immigrant? Do we recognise all his wives? Just one?

I’m asking because the push towards marriage ‘equality’ for same-sex partners could, if carelessly prosecuted, call into question a good deal more than proponents intend. Recognise marriage as a ‘human right’, drop the proviso that such union be between a man and a woman ... by what legal logic can we then exclude ANY form of marriage? American Mormons might immigrate to Australia en masse. (Not necessarily a bad thing ... Salt Lake City’s a nice place, and the Utah environment isn’t much different from what’s on offer in the NT, but that’s not the point.)

I’m not quibbling, or arguing against. I’ve two lesbian friends who adopted a boy with Downs Syndrome many years ago. They’re every bit as ‘married’ as I am, and they’re amazing parents. Surely their relationship deserves recognition.

The solution, I think, is to aim for EQUIVALENCE, not EQUALITY. An ‘equivalent’ institution for same-sex couples would have the same effect -- social, legal, economic. Because it specifically addresses the needs and aspirations of same-sex couples, though, it’d be hard for wild-eyed activists to use it as a precedent for legitimising other non-standard marriage forms. Simply broadening the existing legal definition of ‘marriage’ seems certain to prompt the kind of speculative litigation that could cloud the issue for decades.

Dear Philo,

I am a law student nearing the end of my degree, as I mentioned a few posts ago. I think I know a thing or two about marriage.

Marriage never has been about "love" or "children". From it's inception, marriage has been primarily centered around property and asset's rights -- literally just how to deal with the belongings of two people who co-reside. Over time, more rights and protections were afforded under the header of marriage. Christianity sort of "usurped" the institution for a while, but check any source: marriage greatly predates Christianity.

And, like I said, in a free, democratic nation where we pay tax, all citizens should have access to the same level of rights and protections.

Some people have considered giving strength to civil unions and to elevate them to the same level of power, as an alternative for marriage for gay couples. I don't feel good about that, but it is better than nothing.