Different strokes for different folks. I know that a non-traditional alternative to marriage works for many - because it works for me and my partner! We liked the idea of having the same family name, and we liked the idea of having a party to celebrate our relationship, but that was it, so we changed our names by deed poll and we had the party and it was awesome. We took the things we liked and excluded the things we didn't like and we came up with a way to show our commitment to one another to our friends and families that was uniquely ours: just what we wanted. I can't think of a better way to do things. Sure, if what you want happens to coincide perfectly with what traditional marriage offers, great for you (it's certainly an easier road to travel), but nowadays, people seem to be more and more in favour of getting things their own special way... so I think we'll see a rise in people doing things differently, like myself and my partner, and like the folks in this article.

Marriage and Family

The way some people have come to interpret the term “Marriage” is one of pure legalism: “A Man and a Woman in Holy Matrimonium” which is, indeed, an important part of it: Maternity and a safe haven for children near their mother. Obviously, not much had ever changed there since Matriarchic times.

Maybe, we should involve Parents a bit more in our terminology: “Parriage”? Holy Parentage? Whichever – it is a social formation of safety and stability, entered and concluded, in Christian churches, as a sacrament, a “holy act”, performed and empowered –even in the Catholic church- not by a priest, but by the two persons who proclaim their Love and firm Will to be, from that moment on, in safe and stable relationship. Any “arranged” or “enforced” union can, therefore, not even be recognized as “Marriage” any more – even if some cultures still adhere to that.

I am well aware: There has been much sneer and sniggle -and contempt- for it as it being only “a patriarchic way of enslaving women” etc., etc. not taking into account the earlier matriarchic possessiveness c*m throw-away option rejected by Gilgamesh, according to his Sumerian epic 4 ½ thousand years ago. Old terms don’t die out very easily, and we still call the act “Marriage”, i.e. matriarchic “Matrimonium”, not patriachic “Patrimonium”.

The feminine privilege in child-bearing has been held in highest esteem, even in ages which were marked by male dominance in economic terms – not by wishful oppression of women, but through higher physical strength and greater mobility due to non-pregnancy. So, we still honour women’s monopoly in that most important part of human survival as a species, which makes Matrimonium or Marriage a Term of Honour – and giving women an elevated status above men.

In those “times of sneer and sniggle” (1960/70ies etc), we misinterpreted “Marriage” as a deal in a capitalist-patriarchic slave trading of women, and we did experiment with “alternative life-styles”, open relationships, communal ones –as I would call Dan’s example- et alia. We all proclaimed our eternal “Openness” and “Liberality” – but in most cases, our ‘laissez faire’ failed when outside connections came in. The “openness” of “I’ll tell you all I do” and “I’ll accept your attraction by others” did not go beyond unfaithfulness and changes in directing one’s affections.

And it proved not good for the children I saw in those formations. Good, maybe, in the style of Alexander O’Neill’s concept – but only if there was really no conflict in the group. And if so, then the children’s survival capacity in a not ideal bohemian world was also reduced.

I have been teaching for three decades, mostly in universities, but also children from 2 ½ years onward, and I have seen a decay of education into mere training, of bringing up children into producing little robots, of killing real childhood into cramming prisons – and the worst of it, which underpins it all: the destruction of marriages and families.
Now, “modern” relationships may occasionally work for grown-ups – but when children are involved, they become a crime. That is where I stand opposed to all the claims of “modern gender” and other related theories, because that is what they are: Constructs, theories without foundation.

Marriage is founded in the Sexual Reality based on biological facts and cultivated by neurological structures forming our minds. That is Science. Gender is, if used as a term in proper context, the variable way in which sexual reality and childhood –or adolescent- experience can come forth in a person’s behaviour. There is no fixed structure for that bahaviour, but there is such a fixum in the biological, sexual reality.

What does that mean for Marriage and Family? - Simply: that they are based on the complementary nature of the human species. On that Basis –in the terms of Karl Marx- we have built a suitable Superstructure which secures our survival and existence. The wish of secure togetherness, a haven of safe emotions, showed again and again as an overwhelming urge, demanding commitment – commitment to one other person, the spouse.

And the children’s secure feeling as ‘belonging’ –not as property, but as part- to a secure family of their own genetic origin is a necessary part of their healthy growing up. Which also demands that children should, unless a disaster has prevented this possibility, grow up with their creators, i.e. complementary sexual parents, not people who “bought” them in a “sperm- or ovum supermarket” or from a baby-factory in some poverty-stricken country – which would be ‘slave-trading’ indeed.

Putting all this together, I am firmly in favour, and uniquely in favour, of Marriage and Family in the proven and traditional good and working way of a Man and a Woman, with the option and, hopefully, intent of creating children – not too many, but in responsible numbers – in line with all their Human Rights of Freedom, Equality, Livelihood, and the pursuit of Happiness.

All these pursuits are the rights of all of us – but with rights come responsibilities! And if I cannot, through pre-disposition or choice, be parent –as neither two men nor two women can create babies- it would be wrong to cheat reality through artificial means. That homogendered couples –I don’t say homosexual, because sex is exactly what their situation rejects- live together in a Legal or Civil Union is not a problem: they should, if they wish so. But they should not claim “Marriage”, nor cheat themselves into parenthood. It would be cheating on the children and set them up in planned insecurity.

I know: we sometimes like to play out things we are not sure about – just to test them; but playing with shifting important things that have a solid basis, one that is elementary for our existence, is simply Playing with Fire. Not a good idea! And in this case, we will already see many of our next generation suffer in the insecurity our “playing” has dumped them in. I have seen too much of it already in or schools. Damage and Pain inflicted on far too many who still have long lives to suffer through. And what can they give their children, when we have mistreated them so badly? Let’s be responsible!

Dude, you do have a traditional relationship, except without the legal security that a marriage brings .,..which is fine if that's what makes you happy. Just amused by how hard you try to pretend you are doings omething different