Ahhh, the sweet voice of sanity amidst the phoney baloney queer cacophony.
Thank you Allan Carlson for expressing so clearly what we all know to be true.

I suspect the author actually means "historical" or "conventional" marriage rather than "natural" marriage. Because if you look close enough at what actually occurs in nature, you would conclude that marriage is not exactly natural. Paternity tests on what are considered pair-bonded for life birds return less-than-stellar results for the morality brigade.

The benefits of contractual pair-bonding that occur in human social convention certainly have a historical basis, however there are also many other historical circumstances that allowed such activity. One is that before the Industrial Age, average life expectancy was often less than half that of today. However there are also countless examples of how this convention has been really only the ideal and not a workable reality, especially not to be enshrined in law. There have been orphans and children living with their distant relatives, grandparents, extended families, adopted single parents etc. ad nauseum. This was because war, famine, disease, etc. were commonplace in many parts of the world.

The latest bout of relative tranquility seems to bring out the worst of the morality brigade, who like to rewrite history to suit themselves.

"For the first time in human history, natural marriage has to justify itself in democratic countries before the court of public opinion."

I didn't realise there was such an public backlash against "natural" marriage!

And I really don't like that term: "natural" marriage. My marriage was anything but natural!

In today's Australia there are a
number of existing alternatives to
traditional marriage and family arrangements,
such as single-parent families, cohabitation,
serial monogamy, reconstituted families,
childless couples, communes, "open" marriage,
gay couples and gay-parent families, and of
course - remaining single.

In today's Australia - it's a matter of
choice, and a range of alternatives
is tolerated in the context of growing individualism.
This trend looks like its here to stay.
Perhaps someone should have told the author of this article?

I'm guessing that 'natural' marriage is kind of like 'natural' religion, something somebody thunked up.

Anyways, my relationship is as au naturel as my partner and I can make it.

Foxy, m'dear, the author Allan Carlson is the "General Secretary" of the of the "World Congress of Families" check what the old dude has to say here in his talk about the "Quiverfull Families", he wants women back on their backs, the kiddies quiet and men to be men (which all sounds very closet homo to me).

"Allan Carlson favours larger families of any background, even though he says he is, as he puts it, a "radical secularist".

Dr Carlson heads the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society in Rockford, Illinois, a research group arguing that a shortage of children threatens the world economy.

He says many Quiverfull families want to undermine what they regard as a "contraceptive mentality" in the West.

"The historic Christian view, Protestant and Catholic, prior to 1930, was that both contraception and abortion were incompatible with Christian faith," he said.

Mr Carlson - who advocates a reversal of the industrial revolution and a return to home-based businesses centred on the family - says there is a strategic motivation behind the Quiverfull movement.

"There is a sense in which these intentionally created large families are seeing themselves as the… foundation of a counter-culture, which could grow, and should grow," he said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8287740.stm

Just what this planet needs more humans.

Dear JR,

Thanks for that.

It explains a great deal.

I guess the author is entitled to his opinion,
but my goodness - it's looking at things
through a very narrow lens.

As Tor Hundloe points out in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability," :

"What's going to happen to the globe's carrying
capacity with an expected world population of
over nine billion. We will overshoot, and probably
seriously, the globe's carring capacity.
We will then suffer for ages, as will the natural
world, until we can reduce the human population and
return our ecosystems to sustainable health.
Once the human population peaks, the sooner we reduce the
total numbers, via sensible birth control (to probably
half the nine billion), the less environmental damage
we will need to repair. We don't need the pro-population
growth advocates talk us into their nonsense."