Comments about ‘Letter: Procreation and marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

When animals in the wild "marry" as a requirement to procreate,
then there might be an arguement...

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Having children is not the ONLY reason for marriage... but it's a big one.

Try not being all-or-nothing on this. It's not a black-or-white thing. You can believe that one of the main purposes for marriage is having and rearing children... and not believe that it's the ONLY reason.

If we drop the radical pose... we will all be able to get along better.


If it is, my parents were never married. I'm adopted.

Salt Lake City, UT

To be quite honest, I do not care if marriage a 'big' reason for marriage or not.

It is not legally required to be married, to have children.

And it is not legally required to have children, only in a marriage.

I love when people have to ask a question about a topic, because it means they are, for whatever reason avoiding the facts.

Octo-mom, single mother of x8 children. Created through Invitro fertilization.

Kate plus 8: Had x8 children in a marriage, also through Invitro fertilization. Now divorced.

So until the state of Utah wants to drop $2 million dollars against:

Invitro fertilization, C-sections, and giving pain medications during child birth because these are all 'not traditional' methods of having children…

in the 153 years of marriage. Child bearing is not a valid reason to deny marriage equality.

It creates a doubled standard applied only to LGBT Americans but not Octo-mom or anyone else.

When citing 'traditional' methods for having children…

keep in mind many are using male-enhancing drugs, covered under Medicare.

Salt Lake City, UT

One of the things I always felt was right, growing up Mormon, was the way they taught us that life has a meaning. I know that they also teach that getting married and having kids is what we came here for. I believe it is much more. Life is so diverse that there is no way God intended the same thing for all of us! I feel bad that I didn't realize a lot of things at an earlier age. I would have adopted or found another way to have kids. It isn't somebody else who should tell me if I deserve kids or not!When I am around others, I always wish them the best for who they are and what they need. It isn't going to be the same as what I need to do in life. We think too small. that is why same sex marriage is important. We are important and we are living more of a life that should of been ours a long long time ago!Too bad some people choose not to understand.We have a right to happiness also.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

RE: "We have a right to happiness also"... (RFLASH)

Nobody is denying you your right to happiness. But it's also not our job to make you happy. That's something you have to do for yourself, not something you get from somebody else. Your happiness should not depend on other people understanding or everybody agreeing with your decisions. That's something you should learn in life as well.

Pursuit of happiness is one of the "inalienable" rights protected in our Constitution. Nobody's denying anybody their right to be happy here.

If somebody not embracing the gay lifestyle means you can't be happy... then there's something wrong. You shouldn't require other people to change for YOU to be happy (just as they should not expect you to change to make them happy).

Just be happy... don't let what others think determine whether you can be happy or not.

Kearns, UT

"Pursuit of happiness is one of the "inalienable" rights protected in our Constitution. Nobody's denying anybody their right to be happy here."

I honestly appreciate your suggestion that we are ultimately responsible to create our own happiness, and I agree with that 100 percent. If, however, happiness is our own responsibility, then, why are we voting about whether or not marriage should or should not be legal for two people of the same gender? That should be up to them and their definition of happiness, right? Would allowing two men to legally get married somehow interfere with your abilities to be happy? Is their marriage infringing on your rights in any way? Do they need your permission to get married?


I would like to address question 2: "Is having children the sole reason couples marry?"

No, it is not, but the question is misleading and misses the point, which is that married (heterosexual) couples tend to have children and the state would like to ensure that the children that are inevitably produced are cared for. That is why the state is involved in the marriage business.

The question of gay marriage isn't about fundamental rights so much as it is about whether the state has a reasonable expectation to receive the benefits it seeks in return for the marriage benefits it provides to a couple. Historical data suggests that gay couples aren't nearly as likely to reproduce. Furthermore, we don't understand the effects on children -and society - of children being raised en masse without gender role models. The question to be decided by the courts (whether they get it or not) is not whether the love of two gay partners is the equivalent of the love of a man and woman, but whether the state can expect to receive the same benefit from the average gay couple as from the average heterosexual couple.

Durham, NC

Stepping back from the LBGT argument, this whole notion of marriage and having children being required to reach your fullest in this life has been a concept taught by religions for a long time - not just mormons. I was reading one of the older texts found that didn't make it into the bible and it was telling the story of a woman who was reaching the later stages of being able to bear children. It talks about how she was bared from religious practice because those around her felt that she must be unworthy because of her childless state. It talked about her torment at feeling unworthy. Surely the Lord was punishing for something. Of course we know better now days.

Fortunately we don't see this overt level of persecution today of childless woman\families today. But there has been a history of linking a faithful woman or man will have many children as evidence of their faith. To ignore this several thousands of years historical context to the discussion leaves a lot on the table.

@RFLASH - I agree, there are many reasons for us coming to this mortal existence, children and family are only two of them.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

In order to have the lease of integrity,
anyone saying marriage is defined as procreating needs to either always have a wife who is barfoot and pregnant or should be divorced.

I married for love.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

RE: "When animals in the wild "marry" as a requirement to procreate,
then there might be an arguement"... (LDS Liberal)

Come on.. equating us with animals in the wild? That's your measure?


@LDS Liberal: I think you've entirely missed the point of the marriage debate (as have most other debaters), which revolves around the state's involvement in the institution of marriage. The state could hardly care less if two people who apply for a marriage license love each other. What the state cares about is whether the relationship is likely to produce children, and, if so, the state would like to place legal obligations on the relationship in the interest of the children.

When two gay people apply for a marriage license, the correct response by the state should be "not interested". It shouldn't be "sure, have the same benefits as heterosexual couples even though we aren't getting anything in return" any more than it should be "no - you're a second class citizen", both of which are offensive so one segment of the population or another.

If you think the answer shouldn't be "not interested", then you need to step up to the plate and tell us what benefits the gay couple offers the state, and why they rise to the level of what is done for the state by traditional couples.

Durham, NC

Pops..... I am with you all the way to the point of " tell us what benefits the gay couple offers the state". I don't think anyone needs to prove benefit to the state. The state is there to serve and protect us... not the other way around.

That said... I like the rest of your argument. The need for a marriage is to deal with the responsibility of these two consenting adults create. If they are not creating anything... the state has little need to regulate their affairs.

The only exclusion to this is anyone - gay or not - should be able to enter a relationship of joint responsibility and dependency. What that construct should be called... who knows. It could be two sisters who come together to create a family unit to care for the kids when one sisters spouse dies. It doesn't have to be about gayness... but interdependence and responsibility.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments