jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (15 posts)

Is procreation necessary for a marriage to be valid/legal?

  1. jlpark profile image85
    jlparkposted 5 years ago

    Is procreation necessary for a marriage to be valid/legal?

    Well, is it? Many of the opponents to same sex marriage state the obvious in saying - 'you cannot procreate' - as the basis of the reason that they feel SS marriage shouldn't be legal. Yet plenty of heterosexual marriages are formed by infertile couples or those who chose not to procreate.
    So my question is - is procreation necessary to form a marriage? And if so - where in marriage law is this stated?
    Also - if so - what about those who cannot conceive, choose not to conceive, or use donor due to partial infertility (one side of couple infertile).
    No name calling

  2. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    It is funny to watch those of the radical, anti-gay wing of the religious community suddenly become "experts" in biology whenever the subject of gay marriage arises. Prior to that, they all seem to have renounced all forms of science regarding procreation, genetics, and embryotic development.

    1. jlpark profile image85
      jlparkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is, at times. People seem to think one MUST procreate, and SS can't do that - therefore they can't marry. I just want to know where in law it states that one must procreate to be marry cause I can't find it.

    2. lupine profile image73
      lupineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      jlpark, the reason you can't find that law, is because it does not exist, at least not now.

  3. lupine profile image73
    lupineposted 5 years ago

    As far as I know, there is no law that couples must procreate to make their marriage legal or valid. I think they say this about SS couples in order to invalidate the purpose of the marriage, and when the public is convinced that this may be true, they vote accordingly...so the law does not pass. This is just my opinion. Whereas procreation in a marriage helps to form a bond...it is still their choice.

    1. jlpark profile image85
      jlparkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is what I had an inkling of - it's more a use to invalidate the arguments of SS couples. It is still a choice, not law - thank you for your answer

    2. lupine profile image73
      lupineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You are welcome, jlpark. Glad I could be of assistance in seeing this more clear.

  4. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 5 years ago

    No, that is a silly argument. Just because a couple is unable to conceive does not invalidate their marriage. Most people get married because they're in love. Some couples have children and some don't. Not every couple wants children anyway. What's next, a new law stating: If you don't plan to have children or cannot have them you should not be allowed to get married?
    Conservatives say: The "government" shouldn't be able to take away our assault weapons but it should be able to us who we can legally marry. Interesting logic.

    1. jlpark profile image85
      jlparkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Dashing Scorpio - I agree - if it's about baby making then it can't just be about gays or its merely an excuse to be hateful. Some of the logic defies me on all this

  5. jdflom profile image76
    jdflomposted 5 years ago

    I think the idea of procreating as a basis for marriage falls in line with the whole idea of the "sanctity of marriage," or "holy matrimony." This is something that not everyone believes in... and nor should they. It's interesting how certain people who oppose gay marriage pick and choose parts of the bible that they are likely parroting from a religious leader that has misinterpreted and misconstrued an already misinterpreted version of the religious text.

    Why are divorced or infertile couples not treated with the same amount of exclusionary speech? Not that anyone should be subjected to bigotry, but what I am saying is that those are supposedly just as bad and fall in line with what the religious texts say are bad, yet no one seems to mind as long as they're straight.

    Even if a religious tradition was to marry for procreation, it's moot because the United States is not a theocracy. It was founded on many freedoms, including religion... you know, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  There are other religions and non-religions out there that live in America and we can't let one religion dictate our laws. I believe that is a form of oppression toward others. Remember the crusades?

    Unlike who we are attracted to, procreation is a choice for any couple - gay, straight or anything in between - not a requirement for marriage.

    1. jlpark profile image85
      jlparkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your answer.

  6. Theophanes profile image99
    Theophanesposted 5 years ago

    Marriage first became a legal issue when the Roman Empire feared their people were not producing enough children, particularly from known lines. This is when they decided to give a tax exemption to married couples and a tax hike to single people. It was a patriarchy and knowing who the father of the children was, was of great importance so that inheritances, including job titles, could be passed down. So if you look at marriage as a legal issue, or a traditional issue, yes procreation seems to be the vital element.

    That being said gay and lesbian couples are more than capable of reproducing. They're not infertile and they have the same access to reproductive technology straight people do. There's even a new emerging technology that allows a fetus to be formed by manipulating two eggs, without sperm! (Sorry guys, the reverse is not true for you.) And of course heterosexual couples do not HAVE to have children to be married. It's an option, not a compulsion. Not everyone wants or can have kids, that has nothing to do with sexuality.

    Marriage gets a bit trickier when you consider it a religious issue. A union under God can only be recognized if you believe your God is consenting of such a union, but this seems to be a deeply personal issue. Even if you worship the same God as your neighbor you may have completely differing views of what He's telling his followers.

    I wrote an article The History of Modern Marriage that goes over all of this if anyone really wants to delve into the issue.

    1. jlpark profile image85
      jlparkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for this (and yay for new tech!) I will check out your hub when not looking at HP from an iPhone!

  7. IDONO profile image80
    IDONOposted 5 years ago

    Ask a widowed couple that are both 55 years old that question. It won't take biology, theology or sociology for them to answer that. Should they be denied a marriage license? Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?

    1. jlpark profile image85
      jlparkposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That it does!

 
working