I'm starting a new topic from an arguement that started in the homosexuality topic. I had considered continuing that discussion there, but considering it concerns heterosexual couples, it seem completely off-topic (not that there haven't been off topic deviations in that topic already, but no need to add more).

Basically, it is questioning the intentions of parents to have or not to have children being a prerequisite (or at least being highly desirably) to marriage. What got me going on this was Chev's thoughts on the subject.

If they have no children? No. If they can't have children? No. If they can but don't want (yet)? Well, maybe they will want them later. No intention of having any kids ever? Well then, why marry? I plead Ockham's Razor here.
The disconnect is really between two of the statements. Namely, that if there is no problem with

If they have no children? No. then does this not include:

No intention of having any kids ever? I suppose it's the qualification I'm having difficulty with. If it's OK for two people to be married and not have children, what fundamental difference does it make if they do not have children because they chose not to, or do not have children because they were biologically incapbale?

I understand that there is need for at least some people to have children for the continuation of a species. In this regard, it is a positive behavior. However, considering that the world population currently exceeds 6 billion individuals, I do not think there is a requirement for every couple to have the will and desire (even if lacking the ability) to have children as a necessary precursor to marriage.

What are other's thoughts on this?

I do not think there is a requirement for every couple to have the will and desire (even if lacking the ability) to have children as a necessary precursor to marriage.
Because I am a "friend of Liberty" I can't see how having children should be a requirement for marriage. Society should promote freedom of choice in most personal matters. If the state wishes to encourge, or discourage people from having children, (special tax breaks, etc) I'm OK with that, as long as people can ultimately remain masters of their own destinies.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who are not "friends of liberty" and have a strong desire to tell others how they should live their lives.

This is tricky.

I'm going to try and sidestep the entire questioning of marriage as an institution that springs to my mind, and limit myself to the question asked.

Marriage is not about having children. If you take it from a the point of view of a religious ceremony, it's about two people deciding to share everything (well, mostly everything) and live together. From a more "civil" (as in state marriage, for lack of a better term) point of view, it's a legal contract that binds these two people, so that if things go wrong one day and one of them has a sudden change in brain chemistry the other one can get away without his/her entire life being in shambles.

So, in both cases, children have nothing to do with it. It's about the two people (of whatever gender, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it's a man and a woman) who live together, have sex together, and (you wish) don't cheat on or lie to each other.

Now, IF children do come in, then there's an extra responsibility involved. A baby is someone who fully and completely depends on others to survive. That's not human: almost every animal in nature depends on this. In a way, divorce (or termination of the relationship, or whatever) should not be so easily decided by the parents because it will affect the child, one way or the other, and definitely not in any positive way either.

However, as long as the children are not physically in this equation, marriage (both its initiation and its termination) has nothing to do with them. The man and the woman are getting married for each other's sake. What's wrong with that?

To sum up this rather lengthy rant, I don't see any relation between wanting to have children and getting married (meaning the latter doesn't require the former), at least not until the children are there (at which point you have more incentive towards getting married)

Simply, people should marry for whatever reasons they choose - children or otherwise. You can't enforce it (government agent spying the bedroom on wedding night?) and there is no obligation (except from ones parents who want those cute little grandkiddies) to have children anyway.

The world's population is big enough as is. China already has a ban on more than one child per woman and this had lead to serious problems - mothers aborting female babies and trying again for a male child - and now the gender ratio is very unbalanced with men far outnumbering women. Any intervention in having children by the state will only have negative consequences.

@ Ziad and others:

Just to make my stance clear - we're talking about heterosexual couples here. By definition, we can all agree that homosexual couples lack the biological equipment necessary to have children together.

Simple, I remember it well from back in my classes.

Catholic view: Chilrden are a necissity for a marriage. If a marriage doesn't result in children, the marriage is void, both are free to marry again. Probably an annulement procedure has to be taken. Even more intersting, if one person is known as to not able to get children, this person can't merry, as having children is a necissity for marriage.
And the void-factor means, that any not involved third person can demand the void-declaration.

Protestant view: Children are no necissity for marriage. In fact, the purpose of any marriage can be defined by the two partners in question. They can merry with the sole purpose to go hunting butterflies together and agree to never ever have sexual intercourse together, let alone children.

And of course, the day protestants appeared on the scene with their new definition of marriage, their contemporariers objected to it, as it would allow same-sex marriages.

Together with that, we had a case from a soldier that lost it's fertility (completly removed by enemy fire) in the 7-years-war who wanted to merry a young girl, but the parents said no and that, based on Catholic law, a marriage is impossible because of the infertility. The court was a Prussian court, Prussia was a semi-protestant, semi-Catholic kingdom. They let the protestant view prevail and both married. If they lived happily ever after, I don't know.

And there ofcourse, there is a piece in the Meaning of life about it.

Edit: Hey, I can even back it up!

Marriage", says Bishop, "as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the civil status of one man and one woman legally united for life, with the rights and duties which, for the establishment of families and the multiplication and education of the species , are, or from time to time may thereafter be, assigned by the law of matrimony." (I.Mar. and Div. Sec. 11.)

All competent persons may intermarry, and marriage being presumed to be for the interest of the State and of the highest public interest, is encouraged.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09691b.htm

Edit2: he, he, he

answer that, In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt. This impediment is called by the general name of impotence as regards coition, and can arise either from an intrinsic and natural cause, or from an extrinsic and accidental cause, for instance spell, of which we shall speak later (2). If it be due to a natural cause, this may happen in two ways. For either it is temporary, and can be remedied by medicine, or by the course of time, and then it does not void a marriage: or it is perpetual and then it voids marriage,...

In order to ascertain whether the impediment be perpetual or not, the Church has appointed a fixed time, namely three years, for putting the matter to a practical proof: and if after three years, during which both parties have honestly endeavored to fulfil their marital intercourse, the marriage remain unconsummated, the Church adjudges the marriage to be dissolved . And yet the Church is sometimes mistaken in this, because three years are sometimes insufficient to prove impotence to be perpetual. Wherefore if the Church find that she has been mistaken, seeing that the subject of the impediment has completed carnal copulation with another or with the same person, she reinstates the former marriage and dissolves the subsequent one, although the latter has been contracted with her permission.

Although the act of carnal copulation is not essential to marriage, ability to fulfill the act is essential, because marriage gives each of the married parties power over the other's body in relation to marital intercourse.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/505801.htm

And now I know where the assumption that marriage has anything to do with some public interest comes from.

[ November 01, 2004, 19:38: Message edited by: Iago ]

If they have no children? No. If they can't have children? No. If they can but don't want (yet)? Well, maybe they will want them later. No intention of having any kids ever? Well then, why marry? I plead Ockham's Razor here.chevalier said this? :toofar: :rolleyes:

OK, so sex may be necessary for the church to agree to have a marriage, but no where in that statement does it mandate the necessity to have children, which is really the crux of this debate.

I do not envision people marrying without the intent to have sex. That would fulfill the "marital debt" as it is referred to in this document. While it may be assumed that if you have sex frequently, children will be a natural result, it does not state that as a necessity. Furthermore, I can certainly envision people marrying without the intent to have children.

As a Catholic by birth myself, and by dint of my being married in a Catholic church, I can attest that one of the questions I was asked by the priest was whether or not I was capable of having sex. Nowhere was it asked whether or not I was capable of having children. In fact, the priest made perfectly clear that there was a distinction in the question of "Am I capable of having sex" to the unasked question "Am I capable of having children". This certainly implies that the Church places more emphasis on having sex than having children.

Next I will move on to the vows themselves. During the vows I agreed that I would accept children if we should have any, but there was no agreement that we HAD to have children to be married.

So I'm not even sure the Church has a firm position on this. Certainly they favor the act of having children in marriage, but it does not seem that they require it, nor do they even require the intention of the parties involved to have children.

@ Sarevok

I should have been more clear. He's not saying that people who have no children shouldn't be allowed to marry. In fact, he's saying the opposite, that they should be allowed to marry. He just feels that people who have no intention of having children shouldn't bother getting married.

[ November 01, 2004, 21:26: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

I think it's nuts to reduce marriage to a mere procreation contract. If the marriage vows were all about sex (lots) and birth control (none), then maybe I can see how you could view marriage as not having any other valuable components. But what the vows are really about is mutual responsibility: for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health. It's about making a lifelong promise to meet the needs of another person regardless of what may come, no matter how hard it gets, and being assured in return that you too will be cared for in the same manner. It's also about the joining of two families. You don't just acquire a spouse and the parent of your future children on your wedding day, you get a new set of parents, new brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, with all the privileges and responsibilities appertaining thereto.

I find it particularly bizarre when the "marriage is all about biological reproduction" argument comes from the religious, especially those of Judao-Christian backgrounds. The Bible, after all, points out that God created marriage long before creating childbirth. He didn't look at Adam and say, "this man needs someone to bear his children", He said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will provide a partner for him." (Genesis 2:18). And this was a good call, because God was right on target here. Men don't live well alone. They live like bears with furniture. Incidentally, since I didn't comment in the homosexuality thread, I'll add here that I don't think that God's decision to produce a woman as the second human was any sort of sign that heterosexuality is the only way to live. I think He just took a long, cool look at Adam and said, "whoa, I can do better than THAT." ;)

And anyway, people quite often say they don't want to have children, ever, and then have a big surprise or change their minds. There's no such thing as 100% reliable birth control. Better, at least for an old-fashioned type like me, that they be properly wedded before the surprise baby comes along. My husband said he'd never want children, ever, but - oops - here I am waddling around with a giant belly full of son, and he's so excited you'd think it was his idea in the first place. Babies are magic, once they appear on the scene they make you want them even if you thought you never would.

OK, so sex may be necessary for the church to agree to have a marriage, but no where in that statement does it mandate the necessity to have children, which is really the crux of this debate.
Well, it does exactly say that children are necessary -> "... duties which, for the establishment of families and the multiplication and education of the species..." -> The duties have to follow a purpose and the purpose is to have and educate children. If the duty of having children can't be fullfilled by, as in the second part I quoted, by inability to have children, this can be a reason for the annulation of the marriage or the denial of the right to merry (having had no children at all can be in itself a reason to start an annulation) . It's because of the purpose. If a purpose of a contract can't be fullfilled, the contract is void. For example, if i found a corporation with the purpose to import orcs, the corporation is void, because the purpose is impossible to atteign. The same with marriage, if children are the purpose of marriage, the marriage is void, if the purpose is inatteinable, this is, if there can't be no offspring.

"In all contracts it is agreed on all hands that anyone who is unable to satisfy an obligation is unfit to make a contract which requires the fulfilling of that obligation... And yet the Church is sometimes mistaken in this, because three years are sometimes insufficient to prove impotence to be perpetual... In order to ascertain whether the impediment be perpetual or not, the Church has appointed a fixed time, namely three years, for putting the matter to a practical proof: and if after three years, during which both parties have honestly endeavored to fulfil their marital intercourse, the marriage remain unconsummated, the Church adjudges the marriage to be dissolved. "

But that is one view held (that impotence makes marriage impossible by the church, or once was held, and I don't know in what number still, but I think it is the minority opinion now.

In fact, the priest made perfectly clear that there was a distinction in the question of "Am I capable of having sex" to the unasked question "Am I capable of having children". This certainly implies that the Church places more emphasis on having sex than having children.

Next I will move on to the vows themselves. During the vows I agreed that I would accept children if we should have any, but there was no agreement that we HAD to have children to be married.
On the second page, I've quoted in my first post, there are two opinion presented. The refuted one, seems to be the leading opinion now and the one according to which you got married. And it seems to be a "media sententia", a compromise, which makes matters seem more complicate and look paradox.

Traditionally speaking, the primary purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring; the second purpose is the mutual help of spouses, and the third is the remedy for concupiscence. So.. but now...

A few objections have been raised concerning marriage as a Sacrament and having its primary purpose of procreation. The first objection concerns the purposes of marriage and the necessity of the order being as stated. It would seem that if procreation and the education of children is first and must always be the primary purpose of marriage, that those couples who are unable to have children naturally should not get married. The same goes for elderly people who have passed the childbearing years for it would seem that it is no longer necessary for them to remain together in marriage.

This objection can be easily refuted, however, because the couple who either cannot have children naturally whether due to infertility or old age should be open to children and be willing to accept them if it be God’s Holy Will. Therefore they are not disregarding the primary purpose of marriage. Each and every marriage, whether fertile, infertile, or barren, should consider the procreation and upbringing of children superior to the other two purposes, for this is what God intended from the beginning of creation. Just as the eye is formed and destined for sight, there are some unusual cases where the eye may be struck by blindness, either from interior or exterior causes, thus hindering its proper functions. The same holds true for marriage. Every marriage has as its primary end the procreation of new life, and if there are some marriages that cannot bring children into this world due to some natural cause, that does not alter what marriage is naturally and divinely ordered to.

So, the last one seems to the opinion, after which you've been married. It is enough if you accept the children if they arrive.

So I'm not even sure the Church has a firm position on this. No, it's an unsatisfying compromise, as in contradicting itself. If it's purpose to have children, one can not let go of the purpose, when the next best problem arises. Either stick to the purpose or let go of the purpose, I'd say. But letting go of the purpose would mean taking up the protestant view.

http://www.catholicmatch.com/pl/pages/community/articles/details.html?ra=1;id=99

I suppose it's the qualification I'm having difficulty with. If it's OK for two people to be married and not have children, what fundamental difference does it make if they do not have children because they chose not to, or do not have children because they were biologically incapbale?There's a difference between being unable to and being unwilling to do something. However, the difference is tricky: as unwilling persons can change their mind, willing but unable people can regain the ability.

In my very humble opinion, people who believe that people only pair up for the purpose of making people had better give up and get cloistered or something. However, there's a tie between the construct of marriage and family with children, therefore with an intention never to have any children, marriage looks superfluous. It shouldn't be forbidden, but the couple should think if they really should marry, in the first place. If it's at all necessary.

Catholic view: Chilrden are a necissity for a marriage. If a marriage doesn't result in children, the marriage is void, both are free to marry again. Probably an annulement procedure has to be taken.The annulment procedure always needs to be taken. This means the marriage is void by the impediment, but it needs to be declared void to be treated as void per Canon Law.

Even more intersting, if one person is known as to not able to get children, this person can't merry, as having children is a necissity for marriage.Not precisely. Impotence is an impediment, but dispensations apply. They aren't automatic, but they aren't impossible to obtain, either.

And the void-factor means, that any not involved third person can demand the void-declaration.I'm not going to get into details of Catholic Canon Law annulment procedure here, but top priority is to save the marriage. Therefore, even if the marriage is invalid and expression of mutual consent needs to be repeated, the two people are always being convinced to stay together and validate the marriage rather than to split. If the impediment is of such a nature that dispensation is required, they're advised to file for that dispensation.

There's only one case when they won't ever give dispensation: any degree of consanguinity in direct line (ancestor & descendant) or second degree collateral line (siblings). Otherwise, they can give dispensation even from holy orders.

Nowadays many couples don't even bother getting married until such time as they decide they are ready to have children.

@ Iago and Chev

There is a very definite difference between being impotent and being infertile, and the Church only takes and stand on impotence. OK, I'll just spell it out for you, and I'll use the male anatomy as that is what myself, Chev and Iago are most familiar with.

A man who is infertile has for example, a low sperm count, and is incapable of fathering a child. However most men who are infertile are still fully capable of having sex.

On the other hand a man who is impotent is not capable of sustaining an erection. As a result, he is incapable of having sex, he is incapable of ejaculation, and thereby incapable of fathering children.

Now the obvious difference is that in the case of the former, sex is possible while in the latter sex is not possible. They are only similar insofar as neither man is capable of fathering a child. As I stated previously, when I met with the priest before my wedding he specifically asked me if I was able to have sex, and clearly stated that the question was only about sex, and was not asking if I was able to have children. Albeit, the two are not mutually exclusive, but my point is that they are not mutually inclusive either. Someone who is impotent is most certainly infertile, but someone who is infertile is not necessarily impotent.

This view seems to be echoed in some of the posts both of you present. Iago, in your post the priest, bishop, whomever that you quoted only says impotence. I read the "marriage debt" that he speaks of as having sex, not having children, because clearly there are cases where there are no children in a great many marriages over a three year period. I'm thinking that they are saying that the marriage can be voided if you don't have sex in three years, not that it is voided if you don't have children in three years. Chev, you seem to be saying this as well, using the term impotence and not infertility.

Got to give the Catholics credit, they sure were smart when working on their ability to sustain followers, might as well translate it to "Thou shalt spawn many little Catholics!"

If you go far enough back, and look at it in an historical context, marriage in mant societies was often reserved for the wealthy, where it formed a contract between two families: it was all about land and wealth. People who didn't have either tended to just shack up with whoever they wanted.

There is a very definite difference between being impotent and being infertile, and the Church only takes and stand on impotence. OK, I'll just spell it out for you, and I'll use the male anatomy as that is what myself, Chev and Iago are most familiar with.
Hm, no, that's clear to both of us. The problem is, you are phil II. Don't think like a phil II in such cases. A childless marriage is a huge problem, if you're living in mediavel times, because you have no heir and your social status sucks. You need own offspring because no "own last will" is allowed. Adoption is not an option, while wide spread and accepted in antiquity, no practice of the middle ages. So, if you have no children and, for whatever reason, you need some, blame the woman and get rid of her through annulment. Annulment is easy to get. In fact, the protestants and their divorce made everything complicated, but before that, it was rather easy.

As a result of these new regulations, the influence of the church on marriage was greatly strengthened. Very often extensive clerical investigations were necessary to prove or disprove the existence of impediments. For example, marriages that had been entered in ignorance or defiance of such impediments were considered null and void. In these cases the church was therefore willing to pronounce an "annulment". Since divorce was no longer permitted, an annulment was the only way of dissolving a marriage, and thus many married couples who had tired of each other sooner or later conveniently discovered some previously overlooked marriage impediment. The church also began to post so-called banns before each wedding, inviting anyone with knowledge of an impediment to come forward. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

And I think you can't define infertility how you defined it. Well, of course you can now, but you can't define it that way concerning the middle ages. If they had the ability to determine infertility with scientific means, they would have.Impotence is easier to detect then infertility. And never, ever was the man infertile. Infertility was a feminine weakness. And the following quote is renaissance, that means it's quite enlightend already.

Physicians in the Middle Ages largely saw infertility as a punishment from God for failure to take marriage vows seriously, or for enjoying sex. After all, sex was for procreation, not enjoyment.Arnaud de Villeneuve used a technique pioneered by the Ancient Egyptians, of inserting a clove of garlic in a woman’s vagina. If garlic could be smelt on her breath, then her reproductive system was functioning and she would be fertile. He identified several reasons for infertility. In agreement with Rhazes, he identified obesity, on the grounds that ‘fat suffocates the seed of man’. As treatments for infertility, he recommended not only plant-based cures, but such things as the liver or testicles of a young hare or stag.
http://www.repromed.org.uk/history/history_1500.htm

And now, the old school view again:

The opposition to sexual pleasure in marriage was a topos throughout the middle ages. The primary, and for many commentators, only justification for marriage was procreation, and although some degree of sexual arousal was necessary to fulfil this intention, the primary purpose of any act of intercourse remained paramount. In the Early Church Christians were often advised to abstain from sex within marriage once the obligation to procreate had been fulfilled. http://www.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus/bowie.html

And the new school, under which you got married.

Ignorance about the nature of marriage (Canon 1096, sec. 1)

You or your spouse did not know that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/grounds_annul.htm

In the new-school, it is enough that you try to procreate, in the old school, procreation was the only reason sex was allowed. In both views, procreation is the purpose of marriage. The lustburn remedy, which allowed to have sex to prevent worse things from happening, was a smart early idea, but procreation still the main goal. And you had to score goal, as tribal traditions also demanded it.

A childless marriage is a huge problem, if you're living in mediavel times, because you have no heir and your social status sucks. You need own offspring because no "own last will" is allowed. Adoption is not an option, while wide spread and accepted in antiquity, no practice of the middle ages.Not 100% true. If you have siblings then your siblings and their offspring can inherit your land and title. Technically you can 'adopt' your nephew.

But remember people, the above views are just the Roman Catholic views and don't constitute all christianity ;)

Not 100% true. If you have siblings then your siblings and their offspring can inherit your land and title. Technically you can 'adopt' your nephew.

Well, that could be the worst case scenario that one could want to prevent with having own children, that the siblings inherit it. The belongings run the way of the blood and having children is the only way to affect the way the blood is running. Either have children or your mother-in-law gets everything, as that could be the place the blood trail leads to.

Iago, while I agree with what you are saying, I'm confused as to why you bring Middle Ages thinking into this discussion. Clearly, when I started the topic, I was talking about the CURRENT time frame, not what people 500+ years ago thought.

When you initially quoted that bishop, I did not realize that you were making a historical reference only. I thought you were trying to say that such thinking still dominates RCC thinking today, which is why I included the part about there being a difference between infertility and impotence. I still maintain that CURRENT church doctrine states that while it is necessary to have sex, it is not necessary to have children. Ergo, while impotence is certainly a problem, infertility may or may not be.

Finally, I am fully aware that it can also be the female that is unable to reproduce, and that in the Middle Ages it was the female that was to blame. Again, as I stated previously, I used the male anatomy as I felt that was most familiar to the discussion at hand.

I have no idea how this discussion turned towards RCC thinking in the Middle Ages concerning marriage and children. While not completely :yot: it certainly is a substantial deviation from what we started with.

Iago, while I agree with what you are saying, I'm confused as to why you bring Middle Ages thinking into this discussion. Clearly, when I started the topic, I was talking about the CURRENT time frame, not what people 500+ years ago thought.

Well, I actually was talking about right now, because the past in this case is the root of the contradiction of your first post. The definition of marriage today still consists out of the same elements as in the middle-ages. And procreation is the purpose of marriage. Yet, "lame" excuses are allowed. So, the procreation is the goal, but nothing's wrong with not being able to have children.

If it's OK for two people to be married and not have children, what fundamental difference does it make if they do not have children because they chose not to, or do not have children because they were biologically incapbale? Simple, infertility is a "lame" excuse which is completly legitamte today (the goal of keeping people from burning in lust is still reached). But willingly not to chose to have children is not allowed. That's why you had to say, that you are willing to accept children.

Your contradiction comes from not erasing procreation as purpose but accepting reasons why the goal can't be reached, yet let the marriage still exist or even come into being. That's because a elegant solution for the problem without any contradiction (or at least lot of word bending) hasn't been found yet. And abonding procreation as a purpose of marriage is completley out of question.

So:

Basically, it is questioning the intentions of parents to have or not to have children being a prerequisite (or at least being highly desirably) to marriage Yes, the intentions are very important according to contemporary catholic doctrine. And that's why you're (theoretically) not allowed to interfere with conception through contraception, you have to accept conception if it happens.

My 2 cents worth: I think it ludicrous to suggest that people shouldn't be able to get married if they can't / won't have children. An aunt and uncle can play an important part in the raising of their nieces and nephews even if they don't have any of their own. Why on earth should we insist that they add to the overpopulation in the world simply so they can call themselves husband and wife? I find that notion to be quite ridiculous, but that's just my very humble opinion.