Less than 100 couples? That doesn't seem to be correct.
According to the Canadian government census site, the 2011 census in Canada reported "A total of 64,575 same-sex couple families were reported in the 2011 Census, up 42.4% from 45,345 in 2006 (Table 3). Of these couples, 21,015 were same-sex married couples and 43,560 were same-sex common-law couples. While 16.5% of same-sex couples were married couples in 2006, this share nearly doubled to 32.5% in 2011.
Here is the link to the data: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-312-x/98-312-x2011001-eng.cfm
If that’s the case, then that’s the case. I don’t wish to carry on an error. That’s the danger of relying on an old meme. (That might be the number that actually stayed “married” for the 8 years.)
It certainly reflects a different attitude than the “gays” of old, whom you couldn’t pay to “marry.” It was considered a thrill kill. Affairs in the wild were considered the ideal. And these arrangements when attempted often proved very unstable and would provoke more promiscuity, not less. I wonder if while the craze is growing, the rate of “divorces” is keeping pace. Also is Canada remembering to strike from the books those who “divorced”?
At any rate, if the end game of this perversion is to flame like Sodom, even the attempt to “civilize” it through “marriage” will fail and “gay marriage” will be left behind. What relevance would “marriage” have to the mad, evil wish to rape in a gang bang, to meld love and violence in an unholy union? Maybe that’s why polygamy/polyamory is next up?
Anyhow, I will be careful about this in the future.
I’d also be curious how many of these “marriages” even involve sex at all. The state doesn’t even require a husband and a wife to engage in sex to be a husband and wife, so certainly not this. If they are means of leveraging benefits, then any pair of men or women with a don’t-care attitude might do this. Marriages of convenience, in this brave new world. I’d almost wonder if this might devolve into some sort of “household marriage” where a brother and sister might engage, though presumably being watchful not to have intercourse for the sake of any offspring. Because if a brother and brother can “gay marry” then mixed sex siblings will be clamoring for it.
Maybe the whole idea of “state marriage” will turn into a joke. And religious marriages will come full circle and be respected once more, because not every “state marriage” will be a “religious marriage.” God has a way of popping His head up above the chaos and saying “Miss Me yet?” no matter how bad the chaos.