The article makes it clear that the comparison is between Holland with lots of hetero co-habitation and Holland with gay marriage. Here's the pertinent section:
In the Weekly Standard, Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, points out that in recent decades—a time when parental cohabitation was sweeping across Northern Europe—the Dutch clung to the last, ragged remains of their religious traditions. Yes, they engaged in cohabitation—but when Dutch couples had children, they usually got married.He's not saying, "Fifty years ago, Dutch couples got married a lot, and now those gay people ruined it." To believe that people have been shacking up for 30 years and then suddenly it dawns on them that they don't have to get married when they have a kid...That's a big stretch to say the least. Let's also note that the same thing happened in Scandinavia: Co-habitation went along roughly with the rest of Europe, and so did marriage rates, until there was legalized gay marriage, and then the marriage rate dropped like a stone.Not anymore. During the mid-1990s, the rate of out-of-wedlock births began to shoot up. By 2003, the rate of increase nearly doubled to 31 percent of all Dutch births.
So, why would any sane man get married?
Why would any sane woman risk having sex (especially on a regular basis) with a man who has expressed the views you have? If she ends up pregnant, you "just move on with your life" and she ends up holding the bag? Not even paying child support?
Please read closely. You are putting words in my mouth, and I have not done so to you.
I have never said that he should neglect his legal responsibities (that would be child support), I said he would logically LIMIT his legal responsibilities.
Now for the personal attacks section, please grow up.
My statement is that pointing to Gay Marriage and saying 'That is the cause' is pre-mature. Other social structures have changed, for example pre-maritial sex is now socially acceptable, where it was much less accepted 40 years ago.