In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to introduce “gay” ‘marriage’ on 1 April 2001, a Survey by Rutgers World Population Foundation, a centre of expertise on sexual and reproductive health and rights, suggests that about 500,000 people call themselves “gay”. Yet from 1 April 2001 to 2005, only 3% of them married (ref. 1).
This Figure of 3% and the decline in the numbers of same-sex ‘marriages’ (SSM) per year following that law change, strongly suggests that for 97% of Dutch “gays”, the institution of “gay” ‘marriage’ is largely irrelevant, unpopular and/or meaningless. In the 5th year (2005) such “gay” ‘marriages’ plummeted by 56% compared to those registered in 2001. From 2001 to 2002 the numbers dropped by 28%, from 2002 to 2004 by 33% and between 2004 and 2005 by 8%.
In the Netherlands registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch laws for “gays” on 1 January 1998, before SSMs. “Gay” marriage (SSM) was introduced into law later (2001) because these registered partnerships were seen to be legally deficient by “gays”.
New Zealand introduced civil unions into law in 2004 for “gay” couples seeking legal recognition, but they have proved to be very unpopular for “gays” who have demanded, and now secured, on 17 April 2013, the right to be married in law in the same manner as heterosexuals.
If “gay” ‘marriage’ continues to be treated by “gays” in the Netherlands with the same contempt and/or disinterest as they treated “registered partnerships”, then the numbers of all such registered “gay” relationships will decline further to a point that these new ‘institutions’ could well go extinct like the dinosaurs.
In New Zealand civil unions have proved just as unpopular for “gays” as civil partnerships in the Netherlands, and also been criticised as meaningless and degrading by prominent homosexuals in the media, “gay” university academics and “gay” SSM lobbyists.
Ironically those who oppose the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ and seek to promote traditional (heterosexual) marriage are treated with contempt by many “gay” activists and the pro-“gay” media in New Zealand, who label them as dinosaurs, outdated and unable to adapt to the new ‘moral’ “gay” climate. However, such critics fail to recognise the Darwinian evolutionary principle of “survival of the fittest”: it is not the unfit (the sterile, the unnatural etc.) that survive!
Neither of the homosexual participants in “gay” ‘marriage’ can ever share together in any exclusive act of procreation via “gay” sexual activity. Their joint sexual acts are never orientated towards procreation. A “gay” couple can never together play any joint biological role in evolution. Their relationship differs fundamentally from a tradition marriage which involves a male and a female.
From 2001 to 2003 the population growth rate in the Netherlands had declined from 0.55% to 0.50% and by 2011 it had dropped to 0.38%. This decline was temporarily reversed in 2004 (0.50 to 0.58%). The possible correlation between these declines and the drive for SSM law is of interest to researchers (ref. 2).
“Gay” couples are unable to be biological joint-parents of any child as they cannot consummate their ‘marriages’ in the natural heterosexual act (sexual intercourse) which is fundamental to human procreation. It is only via in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or some other ‘technology’ that one partner of a “gay” couple can become a biological parent. The other same-sex partner may in law be designated as the second ‘mother’ (in the case of a lesbian couple) or ‘father’ in the case of a homosexual male couple; but neither such ‘mother’ or ‘father’ can be a biological parent to the child.
Ref. 1 Gay marriage: preaching to the unconverted. April 19, 2013
Definition of Population growth rate: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as threatening by neighboring countries.