The Purpose of Marriage

Contraception. It's a Catholic question, right? Maybe not. In fact, it might just be a question pertinent to the debate today over gay marriage. You see, “gay marriage” is an oxymoron ... but proving it is difficult for believers. So, most accurately, perhaps it is a catholic question.

In the Courier Journal last year, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article regarding “Deliberate Childlessness”. In it, he discusses the various reasons today that a growing number of couples are choosing not to have children. Kids get in the way of your lifestyle. Children are not a viable financial investment. They tie you down, sap your time, energy, and funds, and cause more problems than they're worth. Mohler says, “Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design.”

“Absolute revolt.” That’s strong terminology. But Mohler backs it with Scripture.

God’s design of marriage includes two key components. One is companionship. Genesis says, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’” (Gen. 2:18). The other is multiplication. “God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Gen. 1:28). Companionship and children comprise the two primary components of God’s design for marriage.

Dr. Miguel De La Torre disagrees. In a rebuttal, he argues that “the ultimate goal of sex is fulfillment”. (Dr. De La Torre offers no biblical reason for this statement.) Charging Dr. Mohler with covert racism – “white-supremacy code language” – he assures us that the only reason children were a blessing in the Old Testament was economic. “In an agricultural society, the presence of children literally meant extra hands to work the field. It also provided the parent with a form of Social Security for the future. Children were necessary to ensure financial support in old age. The more children a man fathered, the more financially secure he became.”

I think Dr. De La Torre misses the mark. (Isn’t there a biblical term for that?) The command was clear, and nothing in the Bible contravenes it. “Be fruitful and multiply.” It doesn’t say, “as long as it is convenient” or “as long as the culture encourages it” or “until modern science makes it unnecessary.” As a matter of fact, the U.N. released a report that said that 75% of developing countries have fertility rates below 2.1, the rate required to ensure replacement of the population. So while the overall population seems to be growing, a large number of countries are actually declining in population.

It seems as if marriage was designed for companionship and producing children. I can’t see where this design was changed. And while there are certainly marriages that don’t produce children due to infertility, the goal seems to be offspring and not achieving that goal would be considered bad, not admirable or even “their choice”. It looks to me that Dr. Mohler’s evaluation is biblically correct. Further, if marriage is defined as for the purpose of companionship and producing children, then “gay marriage” would be an oxymoron. Or, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. put it:

Q: If you called a tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?
A: Four. No matter what you call it, a tail is not a leg.

Now, one of the primary purposes of marriage is producing children, perhaps we need to look at contraception. (For a preview, this website has some interesting reference material from a variety of perspectives.)