# WAITaminnit... marriage is about CHILDREN? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 3, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410 "2004-03-03T23:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/1 "2004-03-03T23:32:25Z")
(I began this thread in the Pit simply because I figured, due to the subject matter, it was gonna wind up there eventually. If any moderator feels it’s better suited to Questions, feel free to move it there). Just got back from [CNN.com](http://CNN.com), where they’re talking about the Senate’s yammerfest about gay marriage today. Now, we’ve heard enough about “the sacred institution of marriage” that I don’t much feel like going into it. I will say that if it’s so damn sacred, how is it that elected secular officials can perform them? …but that’s not my point here. My point has to do with a pro-amendment Senator who seemed to feel that marriage was all about children. Having them, protecting them, raising them, and so on and so forth. I found this disturbing. My government is telling me that the entire reason for the existence of marriage is to procreate, rear, and socialize children? Does this mean that any childless marriage is… in some way… wrong, or immoral, or blasphemous, or illegal or unconstitutional, or some fraggin’ thing? I mean, I NEVER regarded marriage as being about children. Jesus, I can have all the kids I want without messing with MARRIAGE! Assuming all you Doper women could help me out, there, that is. Speaking hypothetically, of course. 😃 I have pondered marriage three times in my life. On the first two occasions, children were the furthest thing from my mind. I was not pondering marriage to have children; I was pondering marriage because I was very much in love with the person I was considering marrying. Children? What the hell? A little soon, don’t you think? The only child I thought about the third time was the child my wife had by her previous husband. The only reason I thought about HER was because she was old enough to understand what was going on, and it occurred to me that the situation was therefore more complicated than the ordinary consideration of marriage between two people, yes? After all, if stepkid hated me, this could complicate a newlywed relationship, don’cha think? The last thing on my mind was the procreation of yet more kids. I wanted to get married because I loved my girlfriend, not because I wanted kids. (Third time was the charm, by the way. Been married ten years now. The kid in question survived nicely, and is now in college. We got along fine.) So, one could say, since my wife and I never had any kids TOGETHER, that my marriage is a sham in the eyes of government and God? Or does my stepfatherhood validate me in some way? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/2 "2004-03-03T23:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I found this disturbing. My government is telling me that the entire reason for the existence of marriage is to procreate, rear, and socialize children? > > Does this mean that any childless marriage is… in some way… wrong, or immoral, or blasphemous, or illegal or unconstitutional, or some fraggin’ thing? It’s about the children and what type of society we want to leave them, by keeping marriage the way it is you give them a sense of stability. Even if you chose not to have kids, they can understand the concept of marriage. By redefining marriage you confuse them, making them unsure of anything in this world and turn to a life of crime, if they don’t kill themselves first. ---
**Author:** ![harmless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/2acd7d/32.png) [@harmless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/harmless)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/3 "2004-03-04T00:02:18Z")
> [@](#): > > kanicbird: > By redefining marriage you confuse them, making them unsure of anything in this world and turn to a life of crime, if they don’t kill themselves first. Ummm…did I read this right? Kids will commit crime and possibly suicide by redefining marriage? Again, I say, “ummm…” Okay :rolleyes: Bit out there, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/4 "2004-03-04T00:05:36Z")
Well, the statement about children was right there in my brother’s marriage rite. But it’s not exclusive. I haven’t come to any sort of conclusion myself but the vituperation by homosexuals is really offputting. Calm, reasoned, debate is what **I** need to read to come to a decision. Heretofore, marriage has been a combination of social, legal, and genetic issues. I’m wondering if, with increased longevity (particularly female) and increased stability, it may be time to start to officially acknowledge the seperation of the three. We already have tacit acknowledgement of the social aspect, “X is Y’s partner”; we can extend the legal side - next of kin and all that - and the genetic side is pretty obvious. It’s where the overlaps occur that things become difficult. Could, for instance, a man father a child on a woman and suffice his legal responsibilities by endowing the woman with either money or service? Why, indeed, should a man contribute to a woman’s upkeep beyond the initial infancy - after all, the woman can go out and work, can’t she? And she can share childcare with her lesbian lover too… I don’t know. But I know that I don’t know. And that’s the first step. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/5 "2004-03-04T00:05:52Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It’s about the children and what type of society we want to leave them, by keeping marriage the way it is you give them a sense of stability. Even if you chose not to have kids, they can understand the concept of marriage. By redefining marriage you confuse them, making them unsure of anything in this world and turn to a life of crime, if they don’t kill themselves first. Whoosh? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/6 "2004-03-04T00:11:31Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > My government is telling me that the entire reason for the existence of marriage is to procreate, rear, and socialize children? I’m no historian, but I think this was a pretty common idea (not that it was the **entire** reason, necessarily, but that it was a big one, and possibly the most important, at least from society’s point of view) back in the old days (basically, before modern birth control). Get in your time machine, travel back a jundred years or so, and go around asking people what they think the purpose of marriage is; I betcha a lot of them mention children. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/7 "2004-03-04T01:20:17Z")
So, this means Zsa Zsa Gabor has only been married _once?!_ ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/8 "2004-03-04T01:25:51Z")
\*\*Thudlow, \*\* I don’t have a time machine, and what the story was a hundred years ago is history… no more, no less. Your point is valid… but today is not a hundred years ago, regardless of what President Bush wants to reduce us to. Stability? I don’t buy it. You want stability? Pass a constitutional amendment against divorce. And while you’re at it, pass a constitutional amendment against dysfunctional families, regardless of whether the married couple in that family consists of a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and her dog, or whatever-the-hell. We have \*\*already redefined \*\* marriage in America, folks. It used to mean “until death do you part.” Nowadays, for the majority of Americans, it means “until we get sick of each other.” _Serial monogamy is now the norm!_ The bottom line to my argument is this: **I did not get married to have children. I was not even thinking about children.** Furthermore, if you’re getting married in order to have children, I suspect there may be something hellaciously wrong with your priorities. Who are these congressmen, to tell me the reasons for marriage, to define them? Who are they to tell me that unless there are children involved, my marriage is ultimately meaningless? ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/9 "2004-03-04T01:50:01Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Whoosh? Whoosh. I think. I hope. The scary thing is that some people actually _say_ things like that and mean it. For me, the initial claim that people can only get married to physically procreate children is rubbish. No one who has been infertile has ever been rejected for a marriage license. No couple who were not planning to have children have ever been rejected for a marriage license. A family with adopted children is no less of a family. A stepparent is no less a parent. So, having gotten that out of the way, lets introduce the fact that many same-sex couples are actually raising children. Let’s think about the children. Here they have two loving parents, but are only legally considered to have one parent. What if the “wrong” one dies without a will? They inheret nothing. For that matter, what if the “right” one dies? They would then be ripped away from both people who they had grown up with. And that’s only two of many situations where they are denied legal protections that are given to children raised by a married couple. How can these allegedly moral figures continue to rail against these protections and still consider themselves to be pro-child? More like pro-some-subset-of-children. ---
**Author:** ![Morbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morbo/32/389_2.png) [@Morbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morbo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/10 "2004-03-04T01:56:42Z")
This seems like the proper place to post this recent letter to [Savage Love](http://www.theonionavclub.com/savagelove/): (excised his response to avoid any copyright issues): > [@](#): > > I know you don’t want to hear this, Dan, but marriage is about babies. By supporting the baby industry—i.e., hetero baby producers—our government keeps the country populated. Gay people can’t reproduce, even if they can raise other hetero people’s kids (adoption) or use other people’s sperm (artificial insemination). But never, and I mean never, can two gay people produce a child on their own. Why is that so freakin’ hard to understand? The natural urge of a man and a woman to make babies is the basis of our existence. Your parents had that urge at one time, and that’s why you exist. Duh. Santorum is not a basis for a society. Get over it, baby. > > Gay marriage is not necessary and takes energy away from hetero baby-makin’ and child rearing. We married baby-producers assume legal responsibility for the lives of our children. We should be subsidized. It’s a lot of work, but worth it to see my genetic material carried into the future. My kids are exactly like me and my wife smooshed together. The future for gays is limited to what they can do in this lifetime. You can’t put gays and straights on the same level—it’s unfair to us baby-producers. Now, if we need a subcategory, something like “public union, non-producer,” to make everyone feel good about themselves, fine. So be it. But nothing else is as important as making a person. Name one thing as important. I dare you. Yes, these people exist. ::shudder:: ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/11 "2004-03-04T02:21:10Z")
So, to sum up, the reason we shouldn’t allow gay marriage is because it makes children confused. Of course, a 50% divorce rate, marital spats over topics as trivial as football, adultery galore, marriages of convenience, gold-diggers, and people that go through five or six spouses won’t ever confuse children, or be harmful in any way. The “marriage is sacred” crowd really has to start proving that it is, indeed, sacred, because our society certainly doesn’t seem to think so. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/12 "2004-03-04T02:31:58Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It’s about the children and what type of society we want to leave them, by keeping marriage the way it is you give them a sense of stability. Even if you chose not to have kids, they can understand the concept of marriage. By redefining marriage you confuse them, making them unsure of anything in this world and turn to a life of crime, if they don’t kill themselves first. I **really** hope this post is a joke. But in either case, let me argue (just in case someone out there really feels this way) I was raised in a gay household. I’ve mentioned this several times and don’t this I need to go over it again. If you want the finer details you can search for the “ask the _blank_” I did on the subject. In any case, my fathers we not married. I would have loved it if they could have gotten married. I wouldn’t have been confused about it one bit. In fact, I was NEVER confused about the issue. I highly doubt if they got married my brain would somehow do a 180 and I would rob a bank, steal a car, go on a three state killing spree almost ending in a hail of gunfire with the police if not for commiting the final last act of my horrific crime wave -a murder/suicide with a crack whore I kidnapped in Reno who I’d been keeping tied and bound in the trunk of my car for the last 48 hours. I’m sorry. I just don’t see that happening. What I DO see happening is my father having a much eaiser time dealing with the death of his non-legal spouse. Visitation in the hospital while the non-legal spouse was in intensive, handling monitary affiars, getting his ashes, etc, etc. Not easy as it stands now. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/13 "2004-03-04T03:17:51Z")
Surely there were children and family units before there was the concept of marriage. All the animals on the planet have “children” and they do quite well without the need for marriage. Marriage is about **property**. For quite a long time, women were considered as property. Marriage was a codification of a man’s “ownership” of a woman, or often, women. This was cemented into place when polygamous and polyandrous relationships began to give way to monogamous ones, where the woman was deemed to belong to one man and _only_ one man. Later on, marriage probably became a useful vehicle for add-ons such as inheritence rights. Marriage was about many things, but children and successful family units were around long before state-sanctioned marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/14 "2004-03-04T04:41:14Z")
> [@](#): > > marriage is about babies. Bullshit. > [@](#): > > By supporting the baby industry—i.e., hetero baby producers—our government keeps the country populated. I beg your pardon? Where does it say this in the constitution? The Declaration of Independence? I was under the impression that the government’s job was to do the things I cannot do for myself, like build interstate highways, space colonies, and huge military machines to keep the Viet Cong from invading Burbank. When did it become the arbiter of reproductive rights? > [@](#): > > Gay marriage is not necessary Unnecessary for me, certainly, but the gay folks seem to see things differently… 😃 > [@](#): > > and takes energy away from hetero baby-makin’ and child rearing. Um… how, precisely? Is someone saying that if we let enough fruity-rabbits get married, then all us straight people will suddenly lose our sex drives, or something? > [@](#): > > We married baby-producers assume legal responsibility for the lives of our children. Bullshit. Some of us do, certainly. The majority of us, perhaps. But far from all of us. WAY far. I personally assumed responsibility for my stepdaughter because her genetic parent was an irresponsible drunken asshead. Yet for some reason, you would defend his rights over those of a responsible, hardworking gay guy? > [@](#): > > We should be subsidized. You want welfare, just because you have active sperm, or you want us to pay you to fuck? > [@](#): > > The future for gays is limited to what they can do in this lifetime. You are saying that gay folks can’t raise children, produce great literature, make great movies, or create anything that affects the future in any way? Someone is either insane or simply deluded. > [@](#): > > But nothing else is as important as making a person. Name one thing as important. I dare you. A drooling moron and a woman in a coma can successfully reproduce, bud. Nothing to it. I would say that hanging around for the next eighteen years and raising a child, providing a safe and stimulating environment, protecting the kid and providing the tools necessary for the kid to become a fully growed self-aware self-sustaining human is far, far more important than simply fucking. Wouldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/15 "2004-03-04T05:58:54Z")
I thought marriage was always about property, i.e, the smooth tranfsfer thereof. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/16 "2004-03-04T08:36:30Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Whoosh? While I certainly can’t be positive, I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb when I guess that it was serious. This is the same person who once said: > [@](#): > > I want a day celebrating the white man ending slavery - A day where former slaves can thank the white man for ending this practice. That wasn’t a whoosh either. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/17 "2004-03-04T13:57:25Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > It’s about the children and what type of society we want to leave them, by keeping marriage the way it is you give them a sense of stability. Even if you chose not to have kids, they can understand the concept of marriage. By redefining marriage you confuse them, making them unsure of anything in this world and turn to a life of crime, if they don’t kill themselves first. No. Children are just like 1960s computers, with banks of flashing lights and tape reels. When faced with same sex marriages they will rock back and forth on their heels, smoke coming out of their ears and chant in mono-tone, yet panicked, voices **“Does not compute!! Illogical!!! Does not compute!!”** Then they will die in a shower of sparks and catch fire. This will cause the building to explode, setting off a chain reaction across the face of the planet and ending life as we know it on Earth. Research has proven this to be a fact. We must stop this happening to our children!! ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/18 "2004-03-04T14:15:56Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > I thought marriage was always about property If people would get this simple concept through their heads there’d be nothing to debate, would there? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/19 "2004-03-04T14:23:10Z")
Marriage is commonly understood as being the underpinning of a family. That family may or may not have children. Most do, though, which is why various benefits typically have been given to married couples. It encourages a stable household that children can be raised in. This is typically true of countries around the world. I really don’t think most of them care, **Master Wang-Ka** how much you love your wife. They do care, though, that your wife and you provided a good home for your stepdaughter to grow up in. This is a long-held view, and is the reason behind the government’s involvement in marriage law. The government manages marriage directly, from requirements for the marriage license to the rights of the individuals involved in a divorce. It would have no interest at all, if the only issue involved was how much everybody loved each other. ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410/20 "2004-03-04T14:29:33Z")
If it’s all about kids…Then I ask for a total re-write of marriage laws. All of them. [In many states](http://www.cuddleinternational.org/laws/law-index.html), you can marry your first cousin as long as one can prove he/she is sterile _or_ if they are over a certain age (and by which age the female should have become sterile - yay menopause!) > [@](#): > > **Salt Lake County:** First cousins may marry if they are 65 years of age or older. If they are between 55 and 64 years of age the district court in the county where they reside must find that either person is incapable of reproduction in order for them to be married. > > \*\*Arizona:\*\*First cousins may marry if both are 65 years of age or older or if one or both first cousins are under sixty-five years of age, upon approval of any superior court judge in the state if proof has been presented to the judge that one of the cousins is unable to reproduce. > > \*\*North Carolina:\*\*Yes. First cousins MAY marry, but DOUBLE first cousins may not. Double first cousins are very rare, as the couple have to be related as cousins through both parents. So if marriage is all about children, why is it possible for THESE people to get licenses? Meh. Land of the free indeed… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waitaminnit-marriage-is-about-children/232410.md?page=2)