Should married couples be forced to procreate?
By II2aTee
@II2aTee (2559)
United States
August 17, 2010 10:56am CST
We’ve all heard the argument that marriage should be between one man, and one woman for the sole purpse of raising children. (Of course love, dedication and companionship should never be considered when deciding to get married.)
If that is true, then how come couples are allowed to get married and NOT raise children? If the purpose of marriage really is to have and raise children, then it would stand to reason that the Government should be allowed to decided how many children you should have as well. That IS the purpose, is it not? Marraige is only about raising kids - RIGHT?
Oh, and along those lines… if marriage is strictly a religious institution, then how come married couple get over 11,000 federal tax breaks and bonuses? If its all abour religion, then why is the Government (either state or federal) even involved?
Furthermore, if marriage is strictly a religious institution, then how come Athiests are allowed to get married? How come people of 2 different religious backgrounds are allowed to marry? How come people who practice no religion at all arte allowed to go to any court house and sign a marriage license without any religious authority at all??
My co-worker got married last year. It was in a court house, with no religious undertones what-so-ever. She wasn't even wearing a dress, just jeans and a tee shirt. She has told me they are not going to have children. Tell me, why is it alright for her to get married without any religious backing, and without any chance of procreation?
Kinda blows the whole “Marriage is a union between one man and one woman under God to raise children” concept out of the water, doesn’t it?
I guess marriage in America is changing. And it’s the HETEROSEXUAL couples in America who are changing it. Not the gays.
7 people like this
19 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
17 Aug 10
I have one response to the Federal tax question. Federal taxes fair???? Hahahaha NOT!!!
Now that I am done laughing:
Down to the real issues. Marriage licenses are handed out by the State not the Federal Government. This will turn into a match of State vs. Federal Government Rights Issue.
Marriage is a religious institution. So shouldn't the argument be about whether the States should put marriage back into the churches and instead regulate domestic partnership?
Atheists going against their own belief system? Is that really new? Nope. Sign the domestic partnership papers, they are completely non-religious.
The problem: the forcing of beliefs of the minority on the majority.
The other problem: cheating the system (read school system, etc.).
The final problem and the biggest: Public perception. It is horrible.
1 person likes this
@II2aTee (2559)
• United States
17 Aug 10
It is not, actually, a State vs. Federal Government issue. The Constitution clearly spells out that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is the domain of the State. However, if a State passes a law that is unconstitutional, our system of checks and balances makes sure that the Federal Govgernment can step in and negate it. That is what you are wittnessing right now, and that is why this issue will eventually have its day in the Supreme Court. Regardless of "public perception".
Secondly, Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marraige.
Forcing the beliefs of the minority on the majority? You seem to be confussed on the concept of equality. The individual is protected by the Constitution of our country, regardless of how the majority feels about.
Tell me... when did Americans vote on the Abolishment of slavery?
When did Americans get to vote on wommens sufferage?
It never happened. Thats because it is unconstitutional to vote away the civil rights of another person.
You say it is forcing the beliefs of the minority on the majority. I see it as a religious group forcing their beliefs on the entire country. And as much as Im sure you would love to see that happen, it unfortunatly flys in the face of everything this country stands for. Two men or two women getting married does not elliminate straight marraige. How does this affect you or your marraige again? How does gays getting married trivialize straight marraige at all? It doesnt.
And cheating the system? I'm sorry thats a new one. Elaborate please.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
18 Aug 10
"I see it as a religious group forcing their beliefs on the entire country." Aren't you guilty of the same exact thing by trying to change a religious definition?
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
19 Aug 10
"To take it a step further, shouldn't marriage go back to the Churches where it belongs and shouldn't domestic partnerships be the recognized joining of partnerships between people since they essentially have the same rights?"
So, sierras, are you suggesting that anyone who chooses not to be married in a church should be considered "domestic partners" instead of husband and wife? I believe you're stepping on a lot of toes with that one.
@dorothyDauphinee (534)
• United States
17 Aug 10
NO WAY a child conceived by folks who don't truly want it will be the one to suffer !that to me is child cruelty taken to the extreme
1 person likes this
I agree. But if the purpose of marraige is to raise children, then how come people are allowed to stay married if they dont produce offspring??@dorothyDauphinee (534)
• United States
17 Aug 10
didnt you ever hear about love ???it does exist even if hard to find!
@sconibear (8016)
• United States
17 Aug 10
I LOVE YOU MAN!!! 
...........that's all I got. 
...........that's all I got. 1 person likes this
@sconibear (8016)
• United States
17 Aug 10
Oh yeah..........I almost forgot.......
You know I stand by and support you 1000%!
It's time for the government to stay out of people's personal lives and clean up their own damn messes.
It's time for the courts to do what they're supposed to do and deal with the REAL injustices that tarnish the "American dream."
And it's time for all the religious wing nuts to open their "good books" to the page that says "JUDGE NOT!!! AND MIND YOUR OWN FRIGGIN' BUSINESS!!!"
Love is love........love is not a crime.
@andy77e (5156)
• United States
18 Aug 10
Huh? Who said marriage is only for raising children, and not for love, dedication and companionship?
Marriage is ordained by G-d, not government. So obviously government has no right to determine how many kids you have, regardless.
As for tax breaks, well that's a different topic. We shouldn't have an income tax to begin with. And if we do have an income tax, it should be a flat percentage of income, regardless of anything.
Atheists are allowed to marry because G-d ordained Marriage to everyone. G-d is not really worried about those who claim he doesn't exist. Trust me.
And no your friends actions do not blow anything away. Marriage is between a man and a woman, as ordained by G-d. The 'for the purpose of raising kids' theory doesn't exist.
Not sure what crazy religious group you got the "for the purpose of raising kids" idea from, but here's what G-d's word, the Bible says...
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Genesis 2:24
This is the defining verse for marriage, as ordained by G-d. Notice... Children are not mentioned.
1 person likes this
@dreamhealer (812)
•
18 Aug 10
Well said, Andy! See my comment to response #18 too. I think that with the world so over-populated now, the human race needs to ease off on the pro-creation bit!!! 
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
19 Aug 10
andy, your post is extremely well-spoken. As to income tax, on top of all we already pay - God only asks 10% for His works and purposes. But He is not a tyrant, as are governments. Thanks also for the Geneisi 2:24 elucidation.
@jb78000 (15139)
•
17 Aug 10
i don't expect the people who kick up a fuess about who other people should and should not be allowed to marry place much importance on things like 'logic', or 'common sense'. and if any of them ever thinks any of their ideas through i will be amazed.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
18 Aug 10
Not only thought it through but expressed it well, in my opinion
all the best urban
@madteaparty (2748)
• Japan
18 Aug 10
Well, procreating or not is a personal option. People nowadays marry not because of any religious thing, but because marriage brings you legal benefits that non married couples don`t have.
So no, married couples shouldn`t be forced to procreate 
Imagine that it happened. What would happen to sterile people? Would they go to jail? 
Imagine that it happened. What would happen to sterile people? Would they go to jail? 1 person likes this
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
18 Aug 10
Exactly, what about people who can't have children because they are sterile or because for some reason someone can't get pregnant? Should it be a crime if they don't have children?
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
19 Aug 10
This is not entirely true madteaparty. My husband and I married because we wanted to be husband and wife...the symbolic joining of two to become one. Depending on the income, and whether not both parties are working, marriage can actually be a financial drawback when it comes to the IRS at tax time. Before we were married we jointly purchased our properties, we drew up living wills and Powers of Attorney. The only obstacle was that I couldn't include him on my employer provided healthcare insurance but he had his own coverage anyway. So, unless I'm missing something, the only guaranteed legal benefit would be insurance and I doubt too may folks get married for that reason.
@rogue13xmen13 (14403)
• United States
18 Aug 10
NO! Married couples should not be forced to procreate if they don't want to. I actually have met two married couple, heterosexual I might add, who have never had children because they didn't want to have children. Not everyone who is married wants to have children and not everyone who is married should. I think that having children should be a choice.
Personally, my boyfriend and I don't know how we feel about children. If we do have children, they will be extremely expensive. They will need glasses, braces, possible speech therapy, possible psychiatric treatment, several hundreds of trips to the doctor, and their life won't be easy for them. I don't know if I want to put that on my off-spring?
I love my boyfriend and he loves me, and we might get married, but we just don't know about children.
@maximax8 (31053)
• United Kingdom
1 Sep 10
I think a couple get married because they are in love and think that they are compatible. They will be likely to get married in a church if they are Christians or another religious building if they have a different religious beliefs. Atheists will be likely to marry in registry office or a public building where marriages are allowed. One couple are planning to marry on a pier that is due to open later this year. It is Miss Love and her partner that are going to marry. I imagine lots of marriages happen in Las Vegas. The couples probably dress in all sorts of different ways. Wearing a pair of jeans is very informal.
Married couples should have children if they can do so and they choose to. A married couple might decide against having children. There is nothing wrong with that. One of the pair might turn out to be infertile. These days many ladies that are not married get pregnant and have babies. Some of them are single and others of them are in a life together but not get married relationship.
@goldeneagle (6745)
• United States
17 Aug 10
There is no law going to make my wife and I have a baby if we don't want one. My wife and I have been married for almost 10 years, and we have no plans to have any children, because I do not want any. She has one from a previous marriage, but I do not want any of my own, so we are not having any. They can pass any law they want to pass, but that is not going to change our decision...
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
19 Aug 10
Good discussion, Tee. My husband and I were too old to *procreate* when we married...and we did not have a church wedding. We were married under a beautiful flowering tree that my husband's deceased mother planted when he was a boy and his niece performed the ceremony. Before we were able to have the ceremony another niece had to process our marriage license at the courthouse. As others have pointed out, marriage is a state issue. You have to have the license before you can have the ceremony, whether it's in a church or not. If the state isn't going to discriminate against those who choose not to be married in a church, they shouldn't be able to discriminate in other ways either.
1 person likes this
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
18 Aug 10
I do not think any of your arguments hold water. It is true that God, who ordained marriage for His purposes, issued the command to "go forth and multiply". This does not make marriage a "religious" institution, just God ordained. It is not the bailiwick of the government other than to sanction and protect it.
Having children is just ONE purpose for the marital union. While I cannot speak to all of God's purposes, since I am not He, I know the marriage relationship symbolizes the Love relationship that is to be between His Son, Jesus, and those among the "church" (generic term here, no one church) who wish to be His "bride" and be reconciled to God. God IS Love and He wants to teach us about the kind of love called "agape" in the Greek, that is the deepest form of love. The marital union is where the full form and understanding of the word LOVE can be nurtured. Marriage is a complex relationship, at base spiritual, but also economic in nature, intended to also be a continuation of the species (this includes through adoption of children), and also emotional, and physical. It is also a COVENANT relationship, and God is a God of covenant. He is also a God of relationship. A covenant is much more than a simple contract, but is a promise of a lifetime committment to God's purposes.
While I can understand your need to formulate many questions, it becomes an unnecessary polemic if one puts "man's law" (imperfect, governmental) above God's law, which is always perfect. Since He created us, He holds the "owner's manual", and knows how we operate and work best.
@dreamhealer (812)
•
18 Aug 10
Hi epicure,
Yes, that is an important point, re. adopting children. In the UK the government might even help the oh so important "national deficit" they are always going on about, if they made it a dam* sight easier for couples to adopt. Besides reducing all the non-productive bureaucracy that goes on in the getting poorer-by-the-day United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)! 
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
18 Aug 10
Thanks, dreamhealer, for the info. I lived in London for a year.
@sender621 (14894)
• United States
18 Aug 10
You should marry someone because you love them. You choose to spend your life with them. You are committed to that person. The decision to procreate should be a choice between you and your partner. It should come from want and not from need. It should not be an obligation of marriage. I don't think that any married couples should be forced to procreate. You shouls only do this if you feel it in your heart.
@Catana (735)
• United States
17 Aug 10
Interesting topic. Certainly brings up a lot of the hypocrisy and contradictions about marriage and children. If you take overpopulation and the ongoing degradation of the environment into consideration, it would be much better to make it *illegal* for most couples to procreate. But you have the god-botherers who insist that's what marriage is for, and the ones who insist that it's natural for everyone to want children. Between religion and government, marriage is one of the most messed up and ridiculous institutions on the face of the earth.
@II2aTee (2559)
• United States
17 Aug 10
If marraige exists for the sole purpose of raising children, then couple who choose not to have kids should be forced to divorce.
If marraige is solely a religious institution, then the Government should stay out of it completely. No tax breaks for married couples.
Religious right - sorry - you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
17 Aug 10
I think couples should not be encouraged to procreate, let's end child benefit; no point in paying people to procreate, in a world so over populated
all the best urban
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
17 Aug 10
Hi Tee,As I'm sure you know, I'm right behind you on this one. To say that "marriage is a union between one man and one woman under God to raise children" is more than ridiculous. When I married my second wife, she was long past the age for having children so I guess there was no purpose in it! Too bad someone didn't tell us. Also most of the people who say that probably only recognize Christian marriage. Let's face it, isn't it time for all that to change? Blessings.
@dreamhealer (812)
•
17 Aug 10
You've certainly designed your question to get response!!! Wow!!! If the US of A is the land of the free, then the answer is no. Of course the States are not always so united. I suppose if you went to Texas or you went to California, you would tend (not definitely of course! - before someone has a go!!!) you would TEND to get different answers to that question!!!!! :-)
According to New Age orthodoxy, planet Earth is planet of free choice - of course the tricky part is respecting other peoples' right of free choice too. Hmm that could get controversial where abortion concerned. People are either one or the other side of that argument. Well most of the time; gotta say I'm mid-way on that one. Tis probably a little too free an' easy here in little ole England, but it is also extreme to go blowing up abortion clinics as I hear occasionally happens in the US! We all have our karma, of course we need to have compassion too, and not always look to our own convenience.
Well this is getting a bit of a ramble here for all the sense/ cents it makes :-)
@Torunn (8609)
• Norway
17 Aug 10
For most of my friends, marriage seems to be mainly to avoid having to sign all the papers you have to sign to have everything right when you live together without being married. And of course to get presents. Most of them already have children when they marry. If there's a god, he or she might be very shocked. On the other hand, he or she might be busy with other things.
As for "one man and one woman under God". Do they really say that? Isn't it just a wee bit rude?
