This topic is based on an assertion made in another thread:



(After this quote, it was made clear that the "compelling state interest" was in child-rearing.)

I am in a (government-recognized) opposite-sex marriage. Neither one of us has ever had any interest in having, adopting, or raising children. I was sterilized before I was married. We reap the governmental benefits (tax and otherwise) of marriage.

To Be Debated: Is this unfair? Is it "cheating" society in some way to enter a marriage with no intention of child-rearing?

I don't think so; it's not as if we're going to run out of children if not every married couple reproduces.

My mom used to say that married people who purposefully didn't have children were selfish. But I don't believe that everyone is necessarily supposed to have children.

A family is a family, whether there are children or not. As a married couple, you are employed and pay taxes, you consume and pay taxes. The government is getting its "cut" whether you have children or not.

Absolutely not!

If anything, you are lightening the load on our society on levels too many to count.
Selfish has never meant "unfair".

Not at all.
Reproduction is not the reason people marry. People have children without being married, people get married without having children- if, as was argued, the whole point of marriage is having children you would expect it to be codified into law somewhere.
I don't understand, given how many parents don't raise their children, the reverence for spawning among so many conservatives seen in things like the "family tax credit" and arguments like this that essentially belittle any family group without children.

I don't think it's unfair. What about people who remarry long after they're out of the age range to have children? My mom remarried in her fourties and has a husband for the sake of companionship and to help with the financial burden. ofcourse love is at the core of their relationship. I would hate to think that my mom couldn't remarry because they couldn't reproduce. My mom is very happy with her husband and they have a good life together. Isn't THAT the important thing?

No, it isn't "unfair" to elect to go childless. Marriage is, however, a societal contract based on the premise that a couple will likely raise a family. Its purpose is to promote stability for raising children. That doesn't mean that having children isn't a choice, or that it is a requirement for marriage...but that is the underlying reason behind the state sanction. The government isn't enforcing and endorsing partnership because it has a vested interest in keeping happy couples together for a lifetime of romance.

Honestly, I see this as an argument in favor of homosexual marriage. They often elect to raise children, and the government should have a vested interest in seeing those unions are stable as well. It shouldn't be a requirement for homosexuals to have children, just as it isn't for heterosexuals, but the same underlying assumption applies.

Marriage is a contractual commitment to share your life with someone else. Marriage is NOT a contractual commitment to dedicate your life to procreating.

Perhaps that's what's wrong with the logic (and with most of the disfunctional families we see): people forget that it's the ADULTS at the center of a marriage and not the kids.

I don't think so--I'm not sure what the compelling interest is in regard to the state sanctioning marriage. Children would be created whether or not the state had a "compelling" interest in sanctioning marriage. Personally, the reason why my wife and I had our child didn't have the slightest thing to do with the government or any perceived *advantage* that we would enjoy as a result of having a child.

I know that many married couples without children feel that they get the short end of the stick when it comes to things like compensating for marrieds who have kids(mom or dad stay home if baby is ill, etc.) At the same time, you could argue that having kids holds other couples back. They might have to put their career on the backburner or be looked over for promotions since they refuse to live at the office. I've been on both sides of this issue, and can see both sides. Last summer, Utne magazine had an article about this issue, I recommend it to everyone who is interested about this kind of discussion.