The concept of marriage has formed a very long time. It can be said that the institution of marriage has existed forever, and has always been the same. One can also say that the institution of marriage is a central pillar on which our society is based. However, this does not necessarily mean that it should be that way. Modern society is changing. Universal globalization has led to the mixing of cultures and changing national and racial composition of the population of the Western World countries. We witness a tremendous progress in the developing countries; the attitude toward women is also changing. All of this leads to a change in public relations. As a result, this would have an impact on the institution of marriage.

And it is difficult to say - if this happened for better or for worse. One can only conclude that the concept of the family in today's society is changing, which will have an impact on the society itself, and will lead to more changes in it. What these changes are going to be and whether society withstands them, we don't know. But there is no doubt that they will be dramatic and will fundamentally change our lifestyle. Therefore, western societies must urgently decide where we go from here. The first possible way is to return to Christian values and traditions of the past. The second, alternative, path leads to the revision of the whole concept of marriage and the emergence of its new forms.

Let's think about the first option. Is the return to tradition and restoration of the old morality possible? In theory, the opportunity was there. But in reality, it is highly unlikely that it would work out. The state of public opinion has reached that point where no return to the century-old morality is possible. The society has gone too far in its rejection of Christian values and morals. The dismantling of the institution of marriage has started a long time ago, and now we are only present at the final phase of this act. One of the key points was legalization of same-sex marriages. The idea of equating same-sex unions with traditional marriage makes the concept of marriage an absurd as it contradicts its core definition.

Let me say first that I am not against same-sex unions that are legally registered, that define the partners' property rights and so on. When people begin co-habiting their relations in regards to ownership etc. should be regulated. It is like in business relationships, where business partners specify all aspects of their joint venture. But such union is not marriage in its traditional sense. Marriage is considered as a union between a man and a woman, who share household and bore children. In the same-sex unions only the definition "who share household" is applicable. Therefore, introduction of same-sex marriage is elimination of the traditional institution of marriage. In order to preserve the traditional institution of marriage, a same-sex union should not be called a marriage. Other forms of regulation relationships should be developed for the same-sex unions, and this would be the best solution. But would that be possible in the course of events? It is highly doubted. The things have gone too far. We can only accept the fact that the traditional institution of marriage has died out. We should find a replacement for it, and this is an urgent task.

Let us make a little digression and list the issues of modern families. Infidelity, secrete lovers, living for two families. Divorces, followed by sorting out problems with the rights of children and property; or inability to get a divorce. All of this was considered by a society as a payment for stability that was provided by following traditions, including preservation of the institution of marriage. But now, when the very notion of marriage is at stake, all of the above problems are an additional reason for reviewing it.

Another important issue is that the institution of marriage in the modern form is based on the traditions of Western culture. But in our days, when all ethnic and religious groups have the same rights, the dominance of Christian model of marriage has become contrary to the above groups. For example, the Christian model of marriage is not in line with Muslim tradition, or tradition of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which allows polygamy. For now these groups are probably not powerful enough to change things, but the situation is changing, as is the ethnic composition of the United States, Canada, and Europe's population. In particular, the number of people professing Islam is rapidly growing, and this movement is gaining a growing force from year to year. This is an inevitable process, and sooner or later we will face the situation when the different ethnic groups (who are also called today "visible minorities") will become "majorities" and will have the same influence as indigenous population. At the same time it is a well-known fact that in a collision of cultures, one must consume the other. Or, as a minimum, more dominant (aggressive) culture makes a strong influence on the other. Until now the West European tradition has been dominating, but it is obvious that such a situation will not last long. Therefore, it is essential to develop new principles that would suit all groups, before different cultures bump into serious collision. Without this compromise, it might not be realistic to expect a smooth solution to the problem.

Perhaps keeping the institution of marriage as it was would postpone the necessity of its radical reformation for a relatively long time. However, the decision to equate same-sex marriages with traditional marriages left us no chances. Again, I do not have anything against same-sex unions and I support the idea of developing the rules for governing property and other rights of co-habiting individuals. I only point out that such unions of living together individuals are not marriages in the traditional sense, and the equation of same-sex unions with traditional marriage has destroyed the very concept of marriage. We have no other choice than starting the process of revising the definition of marriage and the principles on which a family should be built.

It is not difficult to imagine in what directions the metamorphosis of marriage will go. Obviously, the next step would be a request to allow polygamy. There is no doubt that this is the next logical step. Making a decision about allowing to register same-sex marriages was bold enough, because it was unpresecedent in history. As far as I know, none of cultural or religious groups recognized same-sex union as a marriage. While polygamy, fir instance, was practiced widely. At the moment it is the norm and is treated as a valid marriage in Islamic countries, and in a number of religious groups, such as Mormons for example. In view of the role of the Islamic factor in the world today, including the percentage of the Islamic population in North America and Western Europe, a polygamy is a much more logical step than a same-sex marriage. At the very least, it is much more in keeping with the spirit of respect for the cultural traditions and national identity of ethnic groups than the recognition of same-sex unions. Thus, polygamy is the next in line for legalization.

Taking traditional Muslim or Mormon definition of polygamy, it is interpreted as "many wifes". However, considering the fact that women in contemporary Western societies have the same rights as men, allowing men to have several wives without giving that right to women, is not acceptable anymore. Therefore, polygamy should be understood as a right of a man to take more than one wife, and a woman's right to have more than one husband (this is called polyandry).

After polygamy and polyandry are allowed, society will immediately face the question, why it is only the union of women and men? And if a man wants to live with two women and one man? Or a woman wants to have her girlfriend in addition to her male spouses as her another spouse? And, how the freedom of a person should be limited when he/she marries somebody as one of his/her spouses, while he/she intends to have other marital partners? Therefore, the next step should be the definition of marriage as a union of several people, regardless of gender. This already looks like an idea of an absolute polygamy. Eventually, this will lead us to a community style of living, where all members have the right to enter into sexual and property relations with each other. At that, marital relations should exclude such a thing as infidelity. Marriage in this case should be considered as a free union of a few individuals, who ally with each other on the basis of common household (co-habiting) and who are eligible to withdraw from the union at any time, without any consequences. But sexual relations in this case should be a secondary factor.

Another way of regulating relationships could be allowing many marriages, when an individual can enter a few marriages at the same time. The definition of marriage in this case stays the same - a union of two people. Thus, each member of the family may also be a member of another family, or even more than one other family. This option is easier for regulating relations, because all matters are decided only between two people.

The third option is to completely renounce the institution of marriage. At the moment, many couples live together and maintain common households without registering a marriage. Perhaps this way should be taken as a basis for allowing cohabitation to unlimited number of people without marriage registration.

Let's step aside for a moment and recollect, why do people get marred?
1. Marriage registration allows people to live together, share household and, in the case of divorce, settle property, which is regulated by law. What conclusion can we draw from this? That it would be enough to develop new rules, which could be applied to anybody, and not just to a married couple. We could take as a basis, for example, the existing regulations for co-owners of private companies. Any issues, regardless of sex, and the number entering the property relations people, may well be regulated by these regulations. When the accounting and record keeping system is well organized, which is quite possible with modern technologies, it will be relatively easy to implement this task.
2. Children. Since the same-sex marriages are not able to beget and can have either adopted children or children from their previous, traditional, marriages or children born by artificial insemination, it is evident that this issue should be a subject to careful review. Apparently, the right to custody of children is to be transferred to mother, unless the mother willingly lets the child's father have this right. Father must support the child through the system of alimony payments. The fatherhood should be defined on the basis of DNA tests, which are to be conducted at the father's request. Obligation of the father to pay alimony starts only if his paternity is proven, and if this man at the time of conception was married to the child's mother.

Therefore, development of new definition of marriage should be based on the following principles:
1. It has to be a free union, which excludes any violence and gives free will to entering or exiting this alliance.
2. Marriage should be viewed as a business partnership, the purpose of which is joint maintenance of households, providing assistance to each other in professional and business career, which includes the right to have share in common savings.
3. The key issue during development of a new concept of marriage should be protection of children and their rights. This includes both financial support of children and protection of their morale. In this light, the regulation of relationships in the event of divorce should be first of all based on observance of children's interests. Additionally, perhaps more attention should be given to governmental custody of the children who are not protected financially or emotionally.

Written above just an example of how to approach the issue of a new concept of marriage. Even if it seems unusual and irrelevant to our days' problems, the process of development a new concept of marriage as an alternative to traditional marriage, should be started right now. When the institution of marriage would enter the full-scale crisis, it will be too late to do anything. The only condition in which we can be avoid the necessity of a new concept of marriage is disaffirmation of same-sex marriages, non-recognition of common-law partnerships and complete moratorium on any modification of the concept of traditional marriage. As I showed above, this is no longer possible. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we have to deal with polygamy, polyandry, group relationships and other forms of relations, which are considered by the modern Western society as total sin.

Questions:

1. In your opinion, is there a need to develop a new concept of marriage?
2. Do you agree that allowing same-sex marriage undermines the traditional institution of a family?
3. How does, in your opinion, the increasing ethnic and cultural diversification affect the need to change the definition of marriage?
4. Do you think that polygamy is acceptable, as well as modification of traditional marriage into a free union?
5. What factors should be taken into account foremost while formulating a new concept of marriage?
6. What changes in the traditional marriage would be sufficient in order to save it and preserve from serious changes?