Is it okay to marry someone just to have children?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,086
1,749
113
#41
I thought something like this. It is true that some couples have things work out like that. But more likely than not, it will not work out, especially in this day and age. Raising children takes a lot of committment. It's hard even for people who are in love. And people also crave for romance, adultery might happen over time, if there's no true connection and intimacy temptation may be enormous and one or both might cave in for a dishonorable life. In short, a recipe for disaster. It's not that it wouldn't be "okay". If someone is "burning" it seems from the Scripture God would approve it, and God's also compassionate to women who crave children. But such marriage lacks the foundation and would likely crumble down, hurting both people and kids in the process.
The idea of dating and marrying based on physical attraction is primarily a modern thing. Families used to arrange marriages long ago. Maybe poorer families did this based on who the children liked, and richer families did it based on family ties, but that is speculation because we know what nobility and kings did, primarily. The emphasis on romantic love grew out of writings on courtly loved, where a knight might love the queen, though he couldn't have her. Then there was emphasizing love and first sight like in Romeo and Juliet. We have a similar idea in our culture, minus the need to get married with countering ideas that loving someone just for looks is shallow.

I remember though, when I was about 14, there was this little girl my age who was really friendly toward me at church who I just did not find attractive. My mom thought she was cute and was teasing me a bit about her liking me. I just imagined, as a teen, when I heard about arranged marriage, my parents setting me up with her or someone I didn't think was attractive. Looks were actually a big deal to me when I was young. It felt like something i couldn't help, either. It was biological. I didn't date a lot, but I wanted to marry someone I found attractive.

But I wonder if it would have been so big a deal if I hadn't been raised in a modern culture with photographs and newspapers. If you lived in a village and hadn't seen more than 200 people in your life, and hadn't seen made-up airbrushed supermodels on magazine covers and beautiful actresses on TV in your formative years, and most people around you were varying degrees of average looking--- with pox mark scars on their faces-- looks might not have been so big of a deal. I wonder when I read a Wikipedia article about historical figures, see a not-too-pretty painting of a princess and read that they raved about her beauty if beauty standards were different back then, or if they just said that kind of stuff about princesses.

I wonder if my concern over looks also came from having a very pretty mother. If i wanted to marry a pretty girl, maybe that influenced my standards of beauty, too. If you look around, most people are somewhere around average-looking. It doesn't make sense mathematically for everyone to be above average looking. Yet a lot of people marry. In the past, I would say most people do. In my own country, I am not sure that is the case anymore. But looks do not keep people from marrying. What individuals are attracted to varies, too. So what I consider an average-looking woman might be the type of girl another man is attracted to. If a woman considered me average-looking, back when I was looking for a spouse, my wife was attracted to me, and her opinion was what mattered.

If you were not raised in a culture where you thought you had to fall in love to get married and where looks and attraction in relation to falling in love weren't emphasized, you might think differently about marriage. It is interesting to hear what Indians think about marriage. Some of the young people say they will let their parents set them up. They say this like it is a normal thing, because it is, for them. If you grow up your whole life in that, that's normal.

I raised my kids, my girls especially, with the idea that you get married to someone your father approves of. That has a lot more basis in scripture than our current culture here in the west. It is obviously messed up with the rampant fornication and high divorce rates and broken homes. Why should our culture be the standard when sin abounds in the area of sex and marriage?

Even the pagans in the Old Testament thought that for a marriage to be legitimate, the father of the bride had to go along with it. The Shechemites didn't just take Dinah as the prince's wife after he prince slept with her. They asked Jacob for permission. English culture used to be the same way. Jane Austen presented made a some parents out to be about putting together matches that promoted their financial interest and emphasized the need for a couple who married to be in love. At least she acknowledged the need for the father of the bride to give permission, though a man going against his greedy father's wishes was portrayed as noble (at least in the movies. I haven't actually read this stuff.) The idealization of romantic love and the youths making the decision about who to marry is older than that. We see it in Romeo and Juliet.

I read one opinion about Romeo and Juliet that maybe the lesson in the story is that if two foolish young people pursue their feelings and seek to follow romance without regard for their parents and family, it can turn out badly for them.

I have read that the boyfriend goes back to the early 1900s. Prior to that, suitors visited a girl at her parents home. A father might burn a candle while the two visit in a room in the house, where the parents can drop in and look. Multiple suitors might come buy until one decided to propose, and then the girl and her family might consider this proposal. Then, women started to have boyfriends-- an institution created that allowed a woman to have the social and emotional support that comes from a husband without sexual interaction. Over time, it came to include sex for many couples, and then for many the marriage option was dropped completely. Women who did marry married a boyfriend.

The reason adultery might be a temptation for people who marry who didn't go through the western hoops of dating and convincing themselves they are in love before marrying is because of the attitudes about the purpose of marriage. Many western people think the purpose of marriage is to make them happy, to provide an outlet for fulfillment of their desires for companionship and someone enjoyable to talk with, an outlet for sexual desires and fantasies, and a variety of other needs. While certain needs should be met or addressed in marriage, if they aren't that doesn't mean one has a right to dissolve the marriage and look elsewhere. For Christians, marriage should depict the relationship between Christ and the church, and we should be faithful even if our partner lacks some characteristic we desire.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,086
1,749
113
#42
I also don't think " in love" means anything. Lots of people are in love for a time and then they aren't in love any more.
Then they might say, "I thought I was in love, but I really wasn't." as if having the right feeling magically makes it last forever. The emotions just did not hit that right note on the scale. If they had, supposedly, it would have worked out.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
#43
i was just thinking about this and going to find the thread and say that too, how that it was through one of Leah's sons, Judah, that Christ came. but Joseph was Rachel's son, too, who was highly favored by God and lived a life that is a strong prefigure of Jesus.

the two of them, Leah & Rachel, are profound types of the Wife of the LORD and the Bride of Christ, not only in contrast with each other, even reversing roles in different aspects, but also individually, and as being unified through Jacob, who's also a picture of Christ :)

i was thinking too how Rachel didn't have any children until all 10 of the other sons/tribes were born, but then her firstborn, Jacob's eleventh, was the one who was given supremacy over them all - Judah, the line of Christ, Joseph, receiving a double portion, having his two sons adopted as two tribes. both marriages were blessed, though there certainly was a lot of trouble for Jacob - this is very complex!
interesting that the ruling line went to Judah not Joseph...maybe God had a purpose for that, cos you think it SHOULD. have been Joseph except for the muck up with Leah needing to be married first. It just shows God wanted to give Leahs children a chance to make good I suppose. They were treated pretty unfairly by their dad Jacob who only really favoured Rachels children...
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,665
13,127
113
#44
interesting that the ruling line went to Judah not Joseph...maybe God had a purpose for that, cos you think it SHOULD. have been Joseph except for the muck up with Leah needing to be married first. It just shows God wanted to give Leahs children a chance to make good I suppose. They were treated pretty unfairly by their dad Jacob who only really favoured Rachels children...
it's really complicated. Reuben was the firstborn, Judah fourth, so culturally Reuben ought to have been the 'ruling line' -- but God's ways aren't our ways

life in that household must have been very strained!!
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
#45
it's really complicated. Reuben was the firstborn, Judah fourth, so culturally Reuben ought to have been the 'ruling line' -- but God's ways aren't our ways

life in that household must have been very strained!!
Reuben was disqualified because...? How about the others...?
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#46
Then they might say, "I thought I was in love, but I really wasn't." as if having the right feeling magically makes it last forever. The emotions just did not hit that right note on the scale. If they had, supposedly, it would have worked out.
I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact I couldn't disagree more.
Marriages lasting have zero to do with our fickle heart desires and so called "in love". In fact I would say "in love" has nothing to do with love.
Love is not some nebulous emotional over taking. Love is investment into someone else's well being at you're own sacrifice.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,086
1,749
113
#47
I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact I couldn't disagree more.
Marriages lasting have zero to do with our fickle heart desires and so called "in love". In fact I would say "in love" has nothing to do with love.
Love is not some nebulous emotional over taking. Love is investment into someone else's well being at you're own sacrifice.
My post was commentary on popular notions of being 'in love' that I hear people talk about, then they base their relationships, and whether they want to stay in them, even marriages, on how they feel. I'm not saying it is the right way to think about it.
 

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,889
2,534
113
#48
Then they might say, "I thought I was in love, but I really wasn't." as if having the right feeling magically makes it last forever. The emotions just did not hit that right note on the scale. If they had, supposedly, it would have worked out.
That was a wholly well thought out post. Yes, you are right, and that's why I wrote that it likely wouldn't work out out in this day and age, which aligns with what you said. With modern Western mentality I think it would likely fail... If two people have the right mentality and expectations, it may work out and they could live happily. If husband and I were in an arranged marriage (we often ask each other when watching historical shows, "what if we were born in another time/place"), I'm certain we would gradually become best friends and affectionate just like we are now, doesn't matter much how he looked as long as he isn't repulsive because our personalities "click". In spite of romantic feelings usually being the beginning, long term love is an emotional disposition and how you personally decided to treat somebody. No reason to discriminate if two people decide to care for one another into the old age just because they are not "in love", I just meant most people today are likely uncapable of maintaining such committment.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,086
1,749
113
#49
Reuben was disqualified because...? How about the others...?
Rueben slept with one of his step-mothers. Simeon and Levi went behind their father's back and slaughtered a bunch of freshly circumcised Shechemites after Jacob agreed to give his daughter in marriage to a prince of theirs who had defiled her if they be circumcised.
 
L

Locoponydirtman

Guest
#50
My post was commentary on popular notions of being 'in love' that I hear people talk about, then they base their relationships, and whether they want to stay in them, even marriages, on how they feel. I'm not saying it is the right way to think about it.
Ok sorry then we do agree totally
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
#51
Rueben slept with one of his step-mothers. Simeon and Levi went behind their father's back and slaughtered a bunch of freshly circumcised Shechemites after Jacob agreed to give his daughter in marriage to a prince of theirs who had defiled her if they be circumcised.
oh thats right now I remmeber.....shuddder....

What a family! I always think of Dinah being the only girl....how hard that must have been, but then she had like four mothers....
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,177
113
#52
interesting that people who marry dont really think about stuff like...your children may leave you. And you looks and beauty or charm may leave you. You may fall ill, or lose your job or get made redundant...are you still going to love this person even when these things happen.

You might not even be able to have children together.

My thoughts are, that people dont mean their vows or maybe they dont even say them anymore.
They marry for other reasons.

I dont know about 'western' culture being much different from 'eastern culture but I do think the breakdown isnt coming from that, as cultures from both sides seem to value family - some have built in family dynasties and such...victorians (19th century english) were VERY conscious of family.

I would say that people are just not being honest with others and it comes down to they lack faith. God sets a great deal on faith, faith in Him first, but in marriage you learn to be faithful to each other. No matter what happens. In good times and bad...some though, are only going to stick round in the good times.
 
Mar 5, 2020
485
133
43
#53
Is it okay to marry someone just to have children? For example, if you prayed for and found someone (and you also think God has led him/her to you), however you are not "in love" with this person, would you get married? You do like this person though and could see yourself with this person long-term (he's loyal, kind, etc.). I would especially like to hear from divorced people with kids.
I'm separated at the moment. The kids are old enough to handle that.
I'd tell you that it is a huge undertaking to enter into a marriage in the first place. Doing it just to have kids seems to be an odd compromise when women are already having kids and without being married.

What do you want more? Children or a friendship where the whole point of that and sex is because you want kids? Getting married to someone you don't love is selfish on your part, and a compromise on his. And it won't last if you're thinking the fidelity thing is part of being that kind of couple.
There are other ways and they aren't as selfish as the plan to marry someone you don't love. What about him? Isn't he going to compromise finding love just to give you kids?

You're asking a lot of a man just to meet your need to have kids.
 

blueluna5

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2018
536
319
63
#54
Is it okay to marry someone just to have children? For example, if you prayed for and found someone (and you also think God has led him/her to you), however you are not "in love" with this person, would you get married? You do like this person though and could see yourself with this person long-term (he's loyal, kind, etc.). I would especially like to hear from divorced people with kids.

No it won't work. People generally do the opposite. Have a baby and then get married, though they are not in love. That's what my parents did.

It will not work out long term. A couple knows if they are in love or not and most of the time one person will look elsewhere. Loyalty only lasts so long if there's no deep emotional connection. You or him WILL have chances with other people. The craving for that love will be there (since there is and never was any at home) and the sin will happen.
 
Dec 30, 2019
1,266
290
83
#55
This is not right to do to them.
Everyone has to make their own choice in life. We can not put the blame on others. The question is: is it worth the sacrifice to bring a child into the world and to raise them as a single parent. Lots of people are confronted with this and they would say there is a HUGE price to pay but yes it is worth it because of the love they have for their child. The non parent parent needs to get out of the way because they can do a lot of damage to the child. Mostly forcing them to deal with feeling that they are abandoned or rejected.

As you say, part of that sacrifice is they may never experience what real marriage intimacy is all about.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,086
1,749
113
#56
oh thats right now I remmeber.....shuddder....

What a family! I always think of Dinah being the only girl....how hard that must have been, but then she had like four mothers....
I believe there is a verse that says that Jacob had daughters, maybe a reference to them going to Egypt.
 
B

Bede

Guest
#57
Is it okay to marry someone just to have children? For example, if you prayed for and found someone (and you also think God has led him/her to you), however you are not "in love" with this person, would you get married? You do like this person though and could see yourself with this person long-term (he's loyal, kind, etc.). I would especially like to hear from divorced people with kids.
I think that's an interesting question. In the past people have married for different practical reasons; often being "in love" was an optional extra. For many it would seem a modern indulgence.
 
B

Bede

Guest
#58
Not sure about how concubinage worked...? also Hagars son to .abraham, Ishmael was illegitimate although God blessed him anyway, I guess a lot of Jacobs sons would have been technically illigetimate too, since he didnt marry their mothers. Concubines are like surrogates?

Leahs son who carried on the lineage to Jesus was Judah. Rachel died in childbirth only having Joseph and Benjamin. They were the favoured children by Jacob.
In those times (and indeed in the early Church times) a concubine was not as we think of them now. They were a wife of inferior status. They were “half wives”. They were not considered “full” wives because of their social status. So Jacob for example had two “full” wives – Leah and Rachel, and two concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Jacob was married to all four women, and the children were considered equal.

Gen 30:4 says: "And she gave him [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife"
Gen 35:22 says: "Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine"
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,086
1,749
113
#59
In those times (and indeed in the early Church times) a concubine was not as we think of them now. They were a wife of inferior status. They were “half wives”. They were not considered “full” wives because of their social status. So Jacob for example had two “full” wives – Leah and Rachel, and two concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Jacob was married to all four women, and the children were considered equal.

Gen 30:4 says: "And she gave him [Jacob] Bilhah her handmaid to wife"
Gen 35:22 says: "Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine"
Roman concubines were not the same as Hebrew concubines. Hebrew concubines were wives. It appears they were slaves raised to the status of a wife.
 
K

Kim82

Guest
#60
If all someone wants is to have children, then they can just adopt.