Is procreation the reason for marriage

[Maren]

With the number of people who are claiming that marriage is for procreation, I thought I should put a poll together. So, is marriage for procreation and, if so, what would be the correct way to add it to the law?

1) In Washington State about two years ago, there was a proposal that a people would be able to marry but if they did not have children within three years, the marriage would be dissolved. This allows people to marry, even time to adopt if they are having trouble conceiving together but does not allow those who do not want children to still be married. Of course, the downside is that it will dissolve some marriages, though when they have children they can get the marriage reinstated.

2) Simply require a couple to have children before they can get married legally. This is an easy way to ensure that a couple is planning to have children and are capable of having children. It also does not break up marriages of those who end up not having children. Of course, as a general rule it does not allow people to get legally married before having sex (which some will see as a loosening of morals); though their religion may still require a marriage ceremony at the church before sex.

3) Require fertility tests prior to a couple getting married. While it does add an extra expense, it also ensures a couple is capable of having children. And, even if the couple does not plan to have children, well, we all know mistakes happen.

4) Procreation is not the primary reason for marriage, and to be married does not require a couple to have children (either because they are incapable or because they just do not want children).

5) Other

Regardless of your position, I ask that you post and explain your believe on this topic.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

5) Marriage is about procreation but if a couple fail to procreate through no fault of their own despite doing all the right things then they are still a real couple.

A simple way to add to the law would be to make contraception illegal (except as medicine for a purpose not directly related to controlling fertility).

Marriage being FOR procreation doesn't mean that it cannot occur without it. It just means that if you marry without the willingness to accept children it's wrong.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

5) Marriage is about procreation but if a couple fail to procreate through no fault of their own despite doing all the right things then they are still a real couple.

A simple way to add to the law would be to make contraception illegal (except as medicine for a purpose not directly related to controlling fertility).

Marriage being FOR procreation doesn't mean that it cannot occur without it. It just means that if you marry without the willingness to accept children it's wrong.

Contraception is used for many reasons, some women do not have regular periods or they have very heavy periods and birth control pills help to control that, some people just plain do not want or like kids, others carry genetic anomalies that would be passed on to an offspring and they choose not to burden a child with that and still others choose not to overpopulate the earth with children they cannot afford or are emotionally capable of dealing with.

 

[Beanieboy]

We aren't on the brink of extinction.
There is no real need to procreate if you choose not to.

 

[gwenmead]

I don't think the purpose of marriage is procreation. I think the purpose of marriage is to determine things like tax and inheritance issues. Children may be a part of that, they may not.

At one point in life I thought that marriage was about a relationship between two people who wanted to form an independent family unit. I used to think it was about love, and about children. I don't think that these things are irrelevant to a couple considering marriage, but I must admit that my attitude shifted when I got a divorce many years ago.

Getting a divorce, going through the process, drove home the cold, hard, bald reality that marriage was first and foremost a contract. The only thing really required to enter into it was a willingness to do so and a fee paid to the state.

Loving one's partner, having children, maintaining a relationship - these things can and do stand alone from the marriage contract. With my current spouse, I have a relationship with him for love and support, and vice versa; the relationship is the living, dynamic thing that keeps us together as a couple. The contract serves to provide us with legal rights which we would not otherwise have, should we have opted to remain unmarried.

Some initial thoughts on that, anyway. Thanks for reading.

 

[Funny Fundie]

Couples must prove they are capable of having children. The only proof required is the fact that one is a male and the other a female. Sterility or other factors need not apply, since science can conquer all.

 

[Funny Fundie]

Once hoosexuals overcome their own homophobia will they create their own concept of marriage and wed accordingly. But! It requires courage and creativity on the part of the homosexual to do so.

 

[Freodin]

Couples must prove they are capable of having children. The only proof required is the fact that one is a male and the other a female. Sterility or other factors need not apply, since science can conquer all.

So what about cloning? Genetic engeneering?

Do these children have to be "in vivo", or would a potential "scientific" artificial pregnancy count?

 

[Funny Fundie]

We aren't on the brink of extinction.
There is no real need to procreate if you choose not to.

This deficit in logic seems common from the liberal left. It's easily quashed by, "Suppose only two short generations refuse to procreate. What's the population of earth afterwards?"

 

[lawtonfogle]

Couples must prove they are capable of having children. The only proof required is the fact that one is a male and the other a female. Sterility or other factors need not apply, since science can conquer all.

FAIL

With science lesbians can have children as well. Please think before you speak. Really, why isn't this rule taught more these days?

 

[Freodin]

This deficit in logic seems common from the liberal left. It's easily quashed by, "Suppose only two short generations refuse to procreate. What's the population of earth afterwards?"

I fear the faulty logic is on your side.

The logical negation of "all couples must reproduce" is not "no couple may reproduce", but "not every couple must reproduce".

Also, based on this reasoning, reproduction should be made mandatory. Would you support that?

 

[lawtonfogle]

This deficit in logic seems common from the liberal left. It's easily quashed by, "Suppose only two short generations refuse to procreate. What's the population of earth afterwards?"

Still quite high with a lot of people in their 30ishes. Now, what is the chance of this happening? I would dare say lower than a few super volcanoes going off.

 

[Garyzenuf]

When my wife and I married she already had two children, no need to procreate. (Thank heavens, just one less thing to do around the house).

 

[suzybeezy]

Most other creatures participate in sex simply for procreation. Humans are raised above all other creatures. God made it so that when we join our spouse in sexual union, a spiritual union of sorts takes place at the same time, the husband and wife are one flesh. 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 gives you a good example of this.

There are several barren women in the Bible who were favored by their husbands. These couples continued to have sex knowing that they could not conceive under normal circumstances. They were Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, and Elizabeth. Each of these women were greatly blessed even though they had sex when procreation was not physically possible. You can read about Sarah and Rachel in Genesis 18:9-12 and 30:22-24, about Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:1-20, and about Elizabeth in Luke 1:6,7.

Another example of sex as an expression of love is found in the Song of Solomon. This book of the Bible is a collection of love poems. When you read this book of the Bible you will not find the words children, offspring or family or any mention of procreation.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Once hoosexuals overcome their own homophobia will they create their own concept of marriage and wed accordingly. But! It requires courage and creativity on the part of the homosexual to do so.

Separate is not equal, should we have separate stores and restaurants that are gay only or should we learn to live together as a diverse community?

 

[wanderingone]

Couples must prove they are capable of having children. The only proof required is the fact that one is a male and the other a female. Sterility or other factors need not apply, since science can conquer all.

How strange, so you think infertile couples are required to depend on science? Even if they are content not having children? What if the couple marries at a point when the woman is past menopause? Should she take the risks associated with infertility treatments combined with the risks of pregnancy for older women because the only reason for marriage is procreation?

Your notion of depending on science is interesting in the face of fundamentalists who feel they shouldn't use science to prevent pregnancy, feeling only God can open and close the womb.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Most other creatures participate in sex simply for procreation.

That is a fallacy since we know that many species engage in sexual activities for the pure pleasure of it which can even include homosexual, autoerotic and masturbatory activities.







http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/news/2006/08/71556

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/162620/gay_animals_truth_about_gay_animals.html

 

[Funny Fundie]

Separate is not equal.

Correct. Separate is not equal. But homosexuals are filled with self-contempt to such a level that they assume "separate but equal" equals "separate but lower". Once they finally overcome this contempt can they arise themselves out of their lethargy and assert their creativity to come up with an idea of marriage that's truly "separate but equal."

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Correct. Separate is not equal. But homosexuals are filled with self-contempt to such a level that they assume "separate but equal" equals "separate but lower". Once they finally overcome this contempt can they arise themselves out of their lethargy and assert their creativity to come up with an idea of marriage that's truly "separate but equal."

I do not know any homosexuals that are filled with self contempt nor who have low self esteem rather they are appalled at the level of hatred and ridicule they get from many in the heterosexual community.


Lets look at a list of but a few of the gay people that have changed the world.
Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.
Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Gertrude Stein
*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.
Alice B. Toklas
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Federico Garcia Lorca
*Spanish author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.
Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Charles Laughton
*English actor, 20th c.
Marguerite Yourcenar
*Belgian author, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Horatio Alger, Jr.
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.
Willa Cather
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell
*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Bessie Smith
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Christopher Isherwood
*English author, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044
May Sarton
*U.S. author, (1912 - 1995)
Edna Ferber
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Margaret Fuller
*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Langston Hughes
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Madame de Stael
*French writer, 17th-18th c.
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz
*Mexican author, 16th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.
Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Zoe Dunning
*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Kate Millet
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Ernst Röhm
*German Nazi leader, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
Paula Gunn Allen
*Native American author, 20th c.
Angela Davis
*U.S. political activist, 20th c.
June Jordan
*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.
Rainer Maria Rilke
*German poet, 20th c.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Montgomery Clift
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.

 

[Gishin]

Correct. Separate is not equal. But homosexuals are filled with self-contempt to such a level that they assume "separate but equal" equals "separate but lower". Once they finally overcome this contempt can they arise themselves out of their lethargy and assert their creativity to come up with an idea of marriage that's truly "separate but equal."

Really, now you're just going off the deep end.