Russel Brand said this.. I was a little baffled at first, but then I got curious... If a marriage has no kids, then was it really worth it?
Second question. Does every man want a son? I was a little irked to hear that I am supposed to sit through however many children it takes till my husband gets one. I find it offensive.. I have other things to do than to child rear...
Most Helpful Guy
It depends on how you view marriage.
If you see it as the age-old "man-and-woman before god", then yes, it would be pointless. A marriage in the eyes of god is so two people can create children that will worship him, not so two people who love each other can live happily ever after. This is the view help by the large majority of people who have a problem with gay marriage. It's not because they think a same-sex couple shouldn't be able to be together, it's because they view marriage as a holy vow that's end-goal is reproduction. Because a same sex-couple can't reproduce, they have no reason to call it a marriage. Although there are some devout religious people who see homosexuality as an abomination which is caused by satan, the majority of people realize that being gay is not a choice.
If you see marriage as a government contract that enables access to all the services and benefits available to families (allowing a spouse to be put on your employee healthcare, being able to visit a dying spouse in the hospital, wills, mortgages, etc), then the choice of whether or not to have kids is left entirely up to you, whichever decision you make is still covered within the parameters of the contract. Because same-sex couples have the ability to adopt a child, or pay for a surrogate mother, the fact that they can't reproduce sexually is irrelevant. This is the view that is held by most of those who support gay marriage. In their eyes, reproduction is a choice, not an obligation, because god is not involved. Therefore, a person's sexual orientation should not be relevant for access to these services. In this case, marriage is extremely important if a couple wants to say, buy a house together.
I believe the latter, in this day and age, marriage is more of a government contract that grants you access to the services you need to build a life with the person you love than it is a religious vow (if you even believe in God at all). 500 years ago, when these services didn't exist, and the only reason to be married was so that you could have sex without going to hell, I could maybe see it being different.
As for your second question, if I had to choose, I would want a daughter. So no, not every man would prefer to have a son. Ideally, I would have a boy and a girl, but I'm not going to be disappointed if I get only boys or only girls.
The idea of being disappointed because your child is either one gender or the other seems kind of terrible to me. They're your kids, you're supposed to love them whether their male or female, straight or gay, dancer's or doctor's. You can't control who they turn out to be, many parents have tried that and failed. Your responsibilities as a parent are to love your child unconditionally, provide for them, teach them moral conviction, ensure they have opportunities to explore what they are interested in, and teach them how to learn from a mistake.
If you can do that, you've given them them the tools they need to be successful.4