What is the biblical perspective on marriage and children?

At my work place many of my peers discuss marriage, dating and future family life, some of whom do not want to have children. To be fair I agree that children are a challenge to raise, nurture and disciple (not to mention discipline). It is no easy task, but I believe the biblical perspective challenges Christian couples have children. Some would argue differently, and it is worth taking a quick look at one of the issues.

Do Old Testament commands have influence into the New Testament era? If so which ones and to what extent? I think that we have to look at how the apostles interpreted Old Testament law, commands and covenants. I have started reading a Counterpoints: Bible and Theology book called Five Views on Law and Gospel which I recommend. Law and Gospel is the discussion of the relationship between Old Testament Law and the Gospel (Law that Jesus gives). As Christians we believe that Jesus did not remove the authority of the Old Testament law,

¹⁷ "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. ¹⁸For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,^c not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹Therefore, whoever breaks^d one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:18

where as Judaism would say that Jesus and Christianity has broken from the Law. 

Continuing our discussion, does the command from Genesis 1:28,

²⁷  So God created humankind^e in his image,

       in the image of God he created them;^f

       male and female he created them.

²⁸God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." ²⁹God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. ³⁰And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

have a literal interpretation in the new covenant? (Also see Genesis 9:1) Are we still called to "multiply"?

It seems that not every Christian is called to do "multiplying". As Paul personally recommends, 

⁸ To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. ⁹But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. -1 Corinthians 7:8-9

But Paul is only talking to singles in this statement, not to those already married. Since this command is given to Adam and Eve, and affirmed again to Noah (Gen 9:1) and we are all descendants then one might argue that this command is still for us. One might also argue that the context of the command was one in which there was only one couple, in the case of Adam and Eve, or only four couples, in the case of Noah and his sons and daughters-in-law, therefore the command was for such a context.

From just the above passage (1 Cor. 7:8-9) we might think that he doesn't care much whether Christians are busy about procreating. But Paul is not addressing a society in which contraceptives are used (It would be interesting to find out if Roman society used any form a natural family planning). Paul is a big advocate for sex in marriage,

¹ Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman." ²But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ⁶This I say by way of concession, not of command. ⁷I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.  -1 Corinthians 7:1-7

Its important to note that the concession that Paul is speaking of in verse 6 is referring to the command for each man and woman to have their own spouse (verse 2), not a concession about each couple should not abstain from sex. If Paul desires that each married couple in the church has a healthy, robust sex life, then children would be the natural outcome of this command in the early church. Lets note that in this passage Paul is not asking couples to have sex in order to have children, but he is not calling for sex without children. I think that it is not wrong to use contraceptives (personally, my wife and I use them). But one should search their heart if they don't want children. What are the motivations? Are those motivations based on faith?

A secular article I just read was encouraging for couples who are concerned about keeping "parenthood from making [their] marriage miserable."

"Our findings go beyond the tired, old debates about gender roles and marriage. In the 1960s and '70s, in part as a consequence of the feminist movement and the therapeutic revolution, many wives understandably rejected what was then a heavily-gendered ethic of marital sacrifice and instead took a more individualistic approach to marriage, focused on meeting their own needs. But if the 1970s divorce revolution taught us anything, it was that heavy doses of individualism and a good marriage aren't very compatible.

Our report suggests, in contrast, that in today's marriages both wives and husbands benefit when they embrace an ethic of marital generosity that puts the welfare of their spouse first. That is, both are happier in their marriages when they make a regular effort to serve their spouse in small ways -- from making them a cup of coffee, to giving them a back rub after a long day, to going out of their way to be affectionate or forgiving. So the lesson here is not for wives now to throw off an other-centered ethic as a relic of an ancient era, but rather for contemporary husbands to embrace this ethic for themselves and their families."

Marriage has to be "other-centered" (selfless), this is the reason the "individualistic approach to marriage" cased a "divorce revolution." Parenthood must also be "other-centered" and this same individualistic approach to parenthood has, among other things, cause population deficit.

Is choosing to have less or no children because we are "focused on meeting [our] own needs" wrong? Is it the Jesus way?