I was raised as a Catholic.  I learned from various sources that there were only two appropriate lifestyles within this framework: monogamous marriage involving a man and a woman or the religious life.  Outside of those two life orientations…well, there was no outside.  Any other lifestyle was unacceptable and “sinful” according to Augustine’s confused idea of concupiscence and original sin. Anyone who didn’t conform would be cut off from God.  Not a place you want to be.

The two acceptable Catholic lifestyles had sexual ramifications, of course.  Sexual activity was only acceptable within a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman and always had to be open to procreation. Contraception (except for the crazy “rhythm method” that nobody could figure out let alone practice) was forbidden.  The other lifestyle alternative, the religious life of a priest or nun, required sexual celibacy.  Any other forms of sexuality were simply unacceptable, sinful, and to be avoided.

            As a child, I found these alternatives to be stultifying even think about.  They seemed unrealistic and highly questionable as meaningful lifestyle formats.  Motivated by a fear of “going to hell” for all eternity if I did not accept them, however, was a powerful reinforcer. Acquiescence was necessary to avoid guilt.  All in all, the Catholic Christian lifestyle was troubling and would remain troubling for me throughout most of my adulthood until I was able to break free from that anti-human sexual repression.

            Neither God nor the church nor the state “marries” anyone or is needed to create a marriage.  These institutions may be called upon to “witness” a marriage but none are necessary for a marriage to happen.  A marriage ends when the people who entered into it publicly withdraw their commitment and act on that socially and with a permanent intention.  Whether property needs to be divided, official documents need to be signed for the state or the church, or children’s welfare accounted for, is entirely another matter, of some importance, obviously, but the marriage “per se” is over once one or both say that it is over and act on that decision publicly and with a sense of permanence.

            Monogamous marriage—given its high rate of failure in divorce or in staying together in an unfulfilling union for the sake of the kids, security, finances, social acceptance or whatever, should not be the only acceptable lifestyle format other than the celibate religious life.  Among an increasing number of people today, of course, it isn’t.

            Despite all the hype and virtue signaling, monogamous relationships are the breeding ground of possessiveness, suspicion, lack of trust, fear, heartbreak, jealousy, dependency, and other forms of unhappiness.  Polygyny, polyandry, “open” marriage, polyamory (whether heterosexual, homosexual, or non-sexual) or any other consensual arrangements that meet the needs of the committing participants to the marriage, can be meaningful lifestyle orientations for those who choose them.  They should be socially supported without penalty.

            Given the high rate of failure and consequent suffering resulting from the high rate of failure of monogamous marriage, especially when predicated upon the Myth of Romantic Love (MORL). Here is what that looks like: fall madly and helplessly in love, get engaged, get married, have children, grandchildren, become best friends and enduring passionate lovers, effective life partners, and live happily ever after. This is basically a man trap. Not surprising that people are choosing not to get married.  Instead of traditional marriage, young people are experimenting  with alternatives to monogamy and celibacy.  That is a good and necessary thing, and about time.  Why should anyone stay stuck with a lifestyle format that is successful less than half the time?  Would you buy a car that only started half the time?

            Procreation is not the primary or exclusive purpose of marriage.  It need not be a part of a successful marriage at all.  From the fact that male and female genitals make it possible to procreate, it does not necessarily follow that this is their primary or only purpose, as natural law theorists such as Thomas Aquinas have argued, since this fails to account for Christine Gudorf’s compelling argument re the clitoris: that the clitoris is a sexual appendage which is not required for procreation and seems only to have been created by a beneficent God for the purpose of producing pleasure.  What did Aquinas know about the clitoris? Why would God create the clitoris if the genitals were designed solely for procreation?  Thus, it seems to me that homosexual marriage and non-sexual marriage, or other forms of non-procreative marriage geared to the pleasure and self-fulfillment of the marriage partners, may be meaningful and beneficial lifestyles for marriage partners, if they can manage it against the conventional backlash and persecution that may follow.

            Human beings are thoroughly sexual from start to finish.  Being sexed is not an accidental quality added to a naturally occurring sexless human being. It is not an attribute of being human. Sexuality is essential to what it means to be human.  An asexual human being, that is, a human being who is not at all sexual, is unimaginable and unthinkable.  Even human beings who do not engage in sexual arousal or who have lost all or substantial parts of their genitals, are nevertheless sexual and can never become truly “neutral.”  You cannot sexually neutralize a human being.

            In the same way that it is simply good to exist rather than not to exist, it is also good to be sexual.  Perhaps a more provocative way of stating that is to assert that all sexuality is good.  Of course, it is difficult to separate “sexuality in itself” from this or that sexual action.  Sexually molesting someone, for example, is morally reprehensible, but it is bad not because it is sexual but because it is a molestation and molesting or coercion of any kind is always and everywhere wrongful.  And the action is perhaps more wrong because it is sexual, but the sexual part itself is not the wrong part.

            Bottom line. Human sexuality is an integral part of human spirituality.  Human spirituality means understanding the purpose of life to be a goal of some kind that transcends the three-dimensional material world. Such spiritual practices would necessarily have to involve some sexual dimension.  Let’s open the door to think about mysticism and sexuality, sexuality in religious ritual, sexuality as sacrament and prayer, sexuality as a practical path to achieving oneness with God, an approach to sexuality requiring an accompanying change of attitude, intentionality, ritual structuring, trying new things, consciousness expansion, stepping fearlessly into the unknown, etc.

            Who has the balls for such a daring adventure?