If marriage is to encourage mating couples to make a permanent home for children, is a fertility test required?

Bruce: If marriage is to encourage mating couples to make a permanent home for children, is a fertility test required?
When I argued that marriage is designed to encourage mating couples to stay together for life, creating a permanent home for children, opponents told me that in that case, marriage would require fertility tests to deny marriage to those who are infertile, old, or not interested in having children. Is this a valid argument? Has any government in history ever imposed such a requirement?

Answers and Views:

Answer by I like you but you’re crazy
No because you can adopt and still raise a family if that is what you really want to do.

Answer by Tiny Tim
DUDE_ where have you studied marriage?
It’s to prevent men from wasting their time defending bastards.
It’s to keep women’s reproductive rights under male control & limit the flow of money to kids.

Answer by isu_trickster
No, a gov’t wouldn’t require such a test. If however, it is found that one of the individuals in the marriage is infertile, it can be used by the other individual as grounds for divorce. I know several couples that are married that have no intention of having children.

Answer by MagnusMoss
I agree with you, actually.

Counter arguments you can use:
1.) Fertility tests haven’t existed very long (and don’t work great anyway…they just test for hormones, not fallopian tube blockages or a damaged uterus).
2.) It works better if people see it as about love and religion and morality. Admitting what marriage is for undermines it’s effectiveness. The threat of hell is a great incentive to keep relationships stable.

I know at one time proof of infertility was grounds for divorce, back when divorces weredifficultt to get.

I know at one time the Church taught that reproduction was the only legitimate reason for sex.

Answer by Tink
No a fertility test insn’t required. Heterosexual couples get married all the time and delay having children by as many as 10-15 years, thus building a bank account and the sharpening the social skills needed to build a better society through/in their child/children. Therefore, it’s a valid argument for heterosexuals and the gov’t needs to regulate the gov’t entities and stay outta the American home.

Answer by Daisy
If you’re arguing that the reason for marriage is children and homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t have children, sure, it’s a valid argument.

Millions of traditional couples choose not to have children, or can’t have children. If your argument is based on children, they should not have been allowed to marry.

And homosexuals can adopt as well as heterosexual couples. Even single people are allowed to adopt in some states.

Answer by Ronald
Bruce,
I don’t accept the assumption that marriage is intended to encourage couples to provide a home for children. That would be the purpose of the state, the church or someone else. My understanding is that couples marry to publicly proclaim themselves a couple, to tell others to butt out and to ask still others to aid them in being a couple. I believe I originally found that in either The Naked Ape or in The Human Zoo.
Ron

Ron

Answer by † Seek truth †
No, couples come together for love and because they think they can get along usually and sex of course is important, but fertility tests wouldn’t make much sense. If they wanted children badly and couldn’t have them, they can think of adoption. So many pregnant women can’t care for their children.

Answer by Jon
I hope you’re asking this with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. You’ve painted a pretty small little box to place the definition of how you perceive marriage. Take a look around at the married couples you encounter and then answer the question. As with most situations…it isn’t just a black and white answer. There is much diversity in marriage.

Answer by Grey Tower
When God blessed Adam and Eve and told them to be fruitful and to multiply and fill the earth, they were physically perfect. There were no genetic disorders. The descendants of Adam and Eve lived to be hundreds of years old. Infertility wasn’t a problem.

Now, the problem with starting out on a premise such as marriage is for procreation, is that, since the fall, infertility is widespread. Therefore, the argument would have to conclude by saying that if a couple were not able to procreate, then they shouldn’t get married. Do you seriously think that’s what God means? You can only get married if you’re going to have children?

There is nothing in the Bible to support that idea and I put it to you that some religions manipulate people in order to increase membership through procreation, even when a large percentage of their members live in abject poverty and ignorance, without the wherewithal, physically, mentally, emotionally or financially, to take care of their offspring in a God-honouring way. And that’s not restricted to Christian religions.

Rather than subjecting courting couples to a fertility test, I reckon they should have to pass a test to get a certificate declaring they are mentally and emotionally qualified to take on the responsibility of marriage and parenthood.

So, to answer your questions, the argument is valid but only if your original statement or declaration about marriage is valid. And no, fertility tests would be worse than useless. They would be counter-productive, dishonouring to God and demeaning to the couple who plan to marry. God did not create women to churn out babies, year after year. God created women to compliment their husbands, and God created men to nurture and take care of their wives.