The Family

April 7, 1991

Host: Barbara Thompson ..................................... Invited Guest: Karl Puechl

Barbara: Good Morning! I'm glad you could join us. And I'm particularly glad to know there are a number of you who are doing so pretty regularly. And finding, much as I do, that it's an informative, educational, sometimes inspirational, always interesting half hour capable of creating some good food for thought for several days. And, as you might expect, from time to time I hear from some listeners who would prefer that we not have guests with views which are different from theirs. I don't like to disappoint but obviously that is just the opposite of our goal for this program which is to provide a forum in which ALL authentic religious beliefs can be heard in a setting which will allow each to give us as true an understanding of that belief as possible without the distractions and distortions which can so easily occur where there is encouragement of argument and confrontation. Having said that, I think we might also take a look at the definition of religion so we're sure we're all thinking alike on what it is. Quoting from my Funk & Wagnall dictionary, this is the way the word "religion" is defined: "The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man's relationship with the powers and principles of the universe." It then adds, "especially with a deity or deities." And, as I think we all know, that can cover a lot of ground. Based on his past appearances on the Seekers Forum, I know that our guest this morning, Karl Puechl of the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship, will also cover a lot of ground. Welcome back once more, Karl Puechl, to the Seekers Forum.

Karl: Thank you, Barbara. I'm glad to be here to again represent the local Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship. Today, we have a discussion topic that is extremely pertinent and of importance to all of us. I hope that we'll be able to stimulate our audience to do some serious thinking about this subject, rather than just relying on comments like "what is this world coming to?"

Incidentally, relative to this particular topic, I think that getting opinions from only the clergy, or an exception like me, is too restrictive. Personally, I'd like to hear opinions from some people that are more directly involved; for example, a pregnant teen-ager or two, a couple of single parents, a social worker, a child-care-center director, a marriage counselor, and an elementary school teacher; also, I'd like to hear from a few professionals like an anthropologist, a sociologist, a psychologist, and perhaps even a lawyer who specializes in family matters. I'm sure that there are others who can also contribute some insight, but this list is sufficient to illustrate my point. Still more broadly, is there any interest in expanding the SEEKERS FORUM to include a broader range of topics and broader participation? Or could there be a parallel FORUM that had this kind of broad mission? If you could find sponsors, I could certainly find people who would gladly participate in some way.

Now, before getting into the discussion topic, I'd like to make some comments that I made during one of my previous visits. At that time, I said that one's religion has value only if it has great impact on one's behavior; that is, on how one interacts with others. Religion should pave the way for a better life both for the individual and for humanity as a whole. Now, relative to this, religions, in general, can be divided into two classes: (1) those that believe that they have answers which are eternally valid and hence they have no need to change; and (2) those that believe that mankind is in the constant process of learning (through practical experience, through scientific investigation, through trial and error, etc.) and, therefore, that religion, to be relevant, must also evolve and must address new issues with new viewpoints as man gains new insights. The Unitarian-Universalist religion is of this latter variety. I think that this UU philosophy will surface when I present my answers to questions about the Family. In general, we UU's don't profess to have absolute answers; only tentative answers and many doubts and questions. Accordingly, we are great listeners and readers; always searching for more facts on which to base rational decisions. Further, since we believe that each individual is free to come to his or her own conclusions, without theological constraint, there will be a diversity of opinions among Unitarians on almost any subject. Hence, especially on a subject as complicated as the Family, my remarks should be interpreted as being the sentiments of a particular UU, not necessarily supported by all or even a majority of my fellow Unitarian-Universalists.

Barbara: Well, I think a good way to begin would be to define the family as we understand it. For example, I'm going to toss out a bunch of questions for you to help us get started. You can answer them in general or each specifically. Here they are:

. Is marriage a necessary form to create a family? Is the family unit as we know it really necessary?

. If you believe it necessary, what purpose do you believe it should fulfill?

. How would you define the family?

. Do you think the family as you define it can fulfill that purpose?

. Should we be redefining the family?

Karl: I'll field these, sort of in order, since the early questions are the easiest to answer. When about 50% of all pregnancies occur out of wed-lock, only a blind dreamer would say that marriage is necessary for creation of a family. Obviously, marriage is not necessary; it is simply a legality that defines heirs and property disposition. The family unit as we know it, probably, is also not necessary. However, to get at what is necessary, we first have to decide what is needed or what functions a family unit must perform if it is to be called a family. Once we've decided upon these functions, then we will be able to rationally assess the potential success or failure of alternative definitions of a family unit on the basis of how well these functions are carried out. And in the success/failure assessment, we must recognize and take full cognizance of modern conditions: easy abortion, and easy birth control, for both the female and the male, so that a woman need no longer be a slave to her femininity; genetic modification that allows choice of off-spring traits including but not limited to sex; mechanisms that allow either a man or a woman to have a child that contains exclusively their individual gene pools, or their gene pools plus someone else's, as in the past, but with a wide choice for the other half, or no part or a modified part of their gene pools. To be somewhat more graphic, for procreation, why does a woman need a husband when she can order sperm from a sperm-bank and can then fertilize herself? Or why does a man need a wife when he can find a suitable woman who will let doctors remove one of her eggs, then in a test-tube fertilize it with his sperm, and then place it in her womb or another woman's womb, or probably within 10 years into an incubator of sorts, to allow for fetal development?

Barbara: Thanks so much, Karl. Just as I expected you are giving us a very interesting and very different perspective! Which, as I said earlier, is what the seekers forum is all about. ... Karl, now let's get on with your comments about our current topic.

Karl: After my long preamble, that sort of got out of hand, let's try to list the functions that a family unit must be able to perform, if it is to be called a FAMILY: First, and I think that we can all agree, a Family unit must somehow provide for children; all children within the family unit no matter how they were conceived. A Family must be capable of providing both physical and psychological nourishment, and must take the ultimate responsibility for childhood development so that the adults, down the road, will be able to, not only survive, but to advance civilization. One can conceptualize a society wherein all newborn babies are immediately made wards of the State, with the State then having full responsibility for all matters pertaining to the children; however, considering human psychology and all our prior conditioning, I doubt that there are many of us who see this as a reasonable development. Secondly, and on this the agreement may not be as universal, I think that a family unit cannot be considered functional unless man's sexual desires are almost completely satisfied therein. Let's face this issue squarely; relative to other mammals, man is over-sexed. Most mammals desire intercourse only when the female is in estrous, which occurs only one or two times a year. Man, and woman, desire intercourse almost always. If everytime someone wanted sex, he or she had to first develop a new relationship, no-one would ever find the time to do anything constructive. In some marriages, sexual gratification is achieved by the man having a mistress; however, I contend that in this case the mistress is really an integral part of the family unit, even though in our culture the wife would be strongly opposed to looking at the situation in this light. Or in some societies, sexual gratification is achieved within the family unit by allowing polygamy or concubinage. It seems clear to me that a family unit cannot be considered functional unless all adults within the family can readily receive sexual fulfillment, almost exclusively, within the family unit.

Thirdly, I suspect that man requires close relationships or comradeships and that these must be conveniently available; hence, I also place responsibility for this function on the family unit. Yes, each of us can go outside of the family unit to work, to visit friends, to spill our guts to the local bartender, to cry on a prostitute's shoulder, to get involved with a psychiatrist, etc., but doing these things takes effort, and therefore, to a high degree, similar friendships must be available within a closely-knit functional family unit.

Having laid out these three criteria, and giving consideration to the current and near-future state of technology as previously presented, we can now conjecture about possible definitions or manifestations of functioning family units. Does a functional family unit always require two adults of opposite sex? No. Can a family unit be called functional when it is composed of only one adult? By my criteria, it would seem that it cannot be. However, if the single adult has a more-or-less permanent relationship with one-or-more other adults that can provide the ready comradeship and sexual gratification, then the family unit could be considered functional, but only if we redefine the family as including all the outsiders that make for functionality. It is to be noted that in my previous descriptions nothing was ever said about living in the same house or apartment; this need not be a requirement; the other family members need only be readily available when desired. Can a family unit be functional when it consists of more than two adults? Obviously, it can since we have many examples of healthy polygamous relationships. But can a family unit be functional when it consists of females plus two or more males with or without sexual sharing? Anthropologists and psychologists are studying these types of arrangements and they are finding out that they can be stable if the participants have not been overly conditioned by Christian morality. Based upon rather limited observation, six adult members, with at least two of each sex seems to be an exceptionally stable condition.

What type of family unit will eventually evolve? My guess is all of the above and possibly more. All variations should be condoned, tolerated, and encouraged. All those that function successfully deserve recognition; especially since it is becoming increasingly evident that the currently-accepted family unit in our culture is not satisfying its requirements, especially not giving the children the necessary conditioning required for mature adult-hood

Barbara: Good. I think that gives us some good foundation, some good basic groundwork on what the family is and is capable of being. And certainly its importance to us as a society. Now again, it seems that there is never enough time. Thanks so much, Karl, for some refreshing perspectives. I knew we could count on your making it interesting. Mind boggling sometimes I'll admit. But always lots to keep the little gray cells active. We'll be looking forward to your next visit to the Seekers Forum