Was it ever mentioned why the Norton's or Kramden;s didn't have kids?

[TVFactFan]

I just thought it was cool that both couples were in their 30's and was married without kids and I don't recall seeing any eps about wanting to have kids

[ChrisTV]

No Medical reason was ever given.
Many episodes dealt with thinking, wanting or possibly having children.

"Pickles" 11/8/52
"Santa And The Bookies" 12/12/53 & 12/18/54
"The Adoption" 3/26/55 & 1/8/66
"Expectant Father" 11/3/56
“Run, Santa, Run” 12/17/66 (remake of "Santa And The Bookies")
"The Second Honeymoon" 2/2/76

[Marvo301]

I read that Gleason didn't think children could do comedy so he decided that the two couples on the show would be childless.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Marvo301

I read that Gleason didn't think children could do comedy so he decided that the two couples on the show would be childless.

Sounds good to me

[PracTz]

Originally Posted by Marvo301

I read that Gleason didn't think children could do comedy so he decided that the two couples on the show would be childless.

Then, too, perhaps Gleason himself, having had his own father abandon him at a young age and himself essentially having his estranged first wife raise their daughters on her own, simply had no clue HOW to be a father and didn't think he could convincingly have Ralph be a believable dad. Moreover, while there was some good comic pathos in having a poor schlub barely be able to scratch an existence for himself and his wife yet still dreaming of becoming rich, it would have been a bit much for the audience to think it funny that there were ALSO children in the very same leaky boat.
All that said, though, I always thought Gleason conveyed Ralph's angst perfectly when the attempted adoption fell through and he had to say goodbye to his intended baby forever. Very heavy and gritty stuff for a comedy back then.

All in all though, IMO it's just as well that the 'reasons' why neither Cramdens nor Nortons had kids were not mentioned.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by PracTz

Then, too, perhaps Gleason himself, having had his own father abandon him at a young age and himself essentially having his estranged first wife raise their daughters on her own, simply had no clue HOW to be a father and didn't think he could convincingly have Ralph be a believable dad. Moreover, while there was some good comic pathos in having a poor schlub barely be able to scratch an existence for himself and his wife yet still dreaming of becoming rich, it would have been a bit much for the audience to think it funny that there were ALSO children in the very same leaky boat.
All that said, though, I always thought Gleason conveyed Ralph's angst perfectly when the attempted adoption fell through and he had to say goodbye to his intended baby forever. Very heavy and gritty stuff for a comedy back then.

All in all though, IMO it's just as well that the 'reasons' why neither Cramdens nor Nortons had kids were not mentioned.

I am watching something tonight called GLEASON which talks about his childhood, him trying to break into show business., and the birth of the Honeymooners

[Duster76]

Gleason said in an interview that having kids around parents who are fighting with each other is not funny, and Gleason knew funny.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Duster76

Gleason said in an interview that having kids around parents who are fighting with each other is not funny, and Gleason knew funny.

And that place was too small for kids