Humanist perspective: Families and relationships

When considering decisions about how we should live our lives, humanist views are underpinned by a number of guiding ethical principles. These help inform humanist attitudes towards family matters.

Humanists do not believe in a god or gods, or they at least believe we cannot ever know whether any exist. They therefore see no reason to follow religious rules or the guidance found in holy texts. Instead, humanists think we need to use our capacity for reason and empathyin order to think about the potential consequences ofour actions. Humanists would not prioritise questions about whether we are following rules or scripture above questions about whether we are causing harm. They do not believe in an afterlife and think we should therefore make the most of the one life we know we have and help others to do the same. They place great value on individual happiness and believe we should work towards creating a better world for everyone.

Many humanists believe that the freedom to live our lives as we wish contributes to our personal happiness. Such freedom should therefore be allowed as long as our choices do not interfere with anyone else's freedom or cause them any harm. The humanist philosopher, John Stuart Mill, wrote:‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’ This is known as the harm principle.

What is a ‘family’ and what is it for?

For many humanists a family is any unit that defines itself as a family and is committed to sharing resources and to mutual love and support.

There are an enormous variety of different types of families. Throughout history and around the world the idea of what a family is has often differed greatly from our traditional image.Families today can involve single parents, unmarried parents, divorced parents, more than two parents, step-parents, parents of the same sex, adopted children, fostered children, and children born from IVF. Some live together; others live apart. Some live with grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. Add to this the fact that families belong to a range of social, ethnic, religious, and cultural groups, and there is hugediversity in family life.

Many humanists willcelebrate this richvariety and the choices and possibilities now open to people. Some people think that the traditional nuclear family is best (the father who goes out to work; his wife, the mother who looks after the home; and the 2.4 children). But the traditional nuclear family does not work for everyone. We should be free to build the kind of family that suits us.

Some people believe that there is a god or are gods who love us and will take care of us throughout our lives. Humanists do not believe in gods or are at least are uncertain if they exist. They therefore believe we need the love and support of other people, particularly family and friends, to help us in life. For many of us, our closest relationships are found within the family, however it is defined. Families exist for mutual support, companionship, and the welfare of children or other dependents. We all need close, loving relationships, and stable relationships are important for the lengthy process of bringing up children. We have a responsibility to take care of each other. The adults in a family should do their best to make responsible choices, and to avoid injustice and cruelty (such as treating different children unequally, or being violent towards other members of the family).

Humanist perspective: Families and relationships

Anthropologists believe human beings evolved to survive in large family groups or tribes. Human beings are social animals, and we are dependent on each other for food, shelter, protection, and help with raising children. Today, however, the growing complexity of human society means we are increasingly dependent on people who we do not know personally for many of our basic needs. We have delegated many of the tasks that would originally have been done by the family.Often our houses are built, our food is farmed, our property is protected, and our children are educated and cared for by the state or by people with whom we have no close personal relationship.

With relatives often living in different parts of the country, our support network is not as readily available. This can place a great strain on families, in particular on new parents. Many humanists believe this is a reason we need to care for those beyond our immediate family and support others to have loving and stable relationships. Humanists believe we need to recognise that all human beings are part of one extended family and we are very much dependent on each other (indeed, this family extends beyond our species).

‘Family values’

Is there anything special about ‘family values’? Are they different from other moral values? Most humanists would say not. ‘Family values’ is, however, a phrase often used by politicians to refer to a very traditional and unrealistic version of the family, and to try to impose restrictive standards of behaviour on people. ‘Traditional values’, though they may be good, are not necessarily good. Humanists believe that people should be free to decide for themselves about how they want to live their lives, not have it imposed upon them.

Should we put our families first?

It is an understandable aspect of human nature that we tend to put our own families first. We would think someone very odd, indeed immoral, if they gave all their time and money to charity, neglecting their own children. On the other hand, there are circumstances when favouritism towards our own family might not be the most morally acceptable choice. Many humanists feel loyalty towards their family, but also recognise all human beings are part of an extended family. They would say we need to take into account the consequences of our actions on all people and the natural world when we decide how to act.

The phrase ‘charity begins at home’ may have made sense in the past, because it was only at home or in one’s immediate community that charity could make a difference. We now, however, live in a very different world, where our actions can make a difference well beyond our immediate circle. The atheist philosopher, Peter Singer, believes we are able toextend our circle of empathy and concern beyond our families and appreciate our responsibilities towards the wider human race and the animal world. Perhaps then the phrase, ‘charity begins at home’, can be redefined.Homemay be the place welearn how to be charitable to others, but that should be only the beginning of our journey towards charity towardsour wider family.

‘Feelings of right and wrong that at first have their locus within the family gradually develop into a pattern for the tribe or city, then spread to the much larger unit of the nation, and finally from the nation to mankind as a whole.’

Corliss Lamont, humanist and philosopher (1902 – 1995)

Humanist perspective: Families and relationships

Marriage and cohabitation

‘I promise to allow our marriage and each other to change and develop, supporting you in happiness and sorrows, health and illness. I promise to live with you as equal and different individuals and to recognise and accept each other’s strengths and weaknesses. I promise to learn from our shared experiences and to build from them a full and caring friendship based on trust and on respect. I promise to work together with you for the good of the community to which we belong and for the good of humanity as a whole.’

Vows from a humanist wedding

Humanist celebrants will conduct weddings for couples who have been married to other people before, for couples from different faiths (who can share in the personal, non-religious content), and for same-sex couples. For many humanists the most important thingis that the two people love each other and have decided to offer their support to each other, and that they know each other and understand the commitment they are to undertake. They should also be equal partners in their marriage. Most humanists believe that everyone should make their own choice about whom they are going to marry and be happy with that choice. Marriages arranged by someone other than the couple, as is traditional in some cultures, can work, if that is what the couple wants. However, humanists believe that no one should be forced to marry somebody that they do not wish to. We should have the freedom to live our own lives the way we want to.

Many humanists approve of the idea of marriage; many others believe that marriage is not necessarily an essential part of a good relationship. They therefore also approve of cohabitation (unmarried couples living together). Cohabitation can be an opportunity to see if we are really compatible with the person before we decide to commit further, perhaps through marriage or having children together. A couple should not, however, feel forced to get married if it is not something they wish to do. People should be free to make mutually agreeable decisions about how they wish to live their lives without interference or pressure from others. Nor should the state make life harder for unmarried couples.

Many humanists are supportive of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, in article 16, states:
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It does not, however, say anything about what a family should look like.

Bringing up children

Children are a serious commitment, and everyone wanting children should consider their situation carefully. Can they offer a child support and stability? Can they give a child enough love and attention? Can they afford a child? Humanists believe that people should think about the consequences of their actions and make responsible and considered choices, taking the potential happiness of everyone involved into account.

Humanist perspective: Families and relationships

When caring for children, there should be a balance between parental responsibilities and the rights of the child. Parents should try to act in their children’s best interests and protect them from harm, but they also need to make sure they do not deny children the freedom to develop a sense of responsibility for their own lives.

Humanists believe that no child should be labelled with a religion or belief until they are old enough to decide for themselves. They believe we should try to bring up children as rational and thoughtful people who are capable of deciding for themselveswhat they believe.

‘Surely one’s children should be given the advantages of one’s own development. Surely they should not be tied hand and foot all over again as their parents were tied to the absolute of the past generation. Millions of children in the world are now being tied to the certainties of ten and twenty and thirty generations ago by this mechanism, wherein each generation refuses to let its children continue from the point it itself has reached.’

Brock Chisholm (1896 – 1971)

Gender issues

Humanists support personal freedom. This involves allowing everyone equal opportunities and choices in the worlds of education, employment, and the home. Many humanists believe that some traditions and beliefs have led to patriarchal societies, dominated by men, and misogynistic practices that deny women their liberty and equal rights. In some societies the traditional notion of the ‘family’ has been used to strictly define roles, to control women, and to discourage homosexuality. Social stereotyping and ‘tradition’ still discriminate against women in a partnership, forcing them to take on the majority of the housework, and mothers after childbirth, who are saddled with the bulk of the childcare.

Humanists believe that women should not have restricted roles imposed on them, but neither should they feel they have to do everything. Men, too, should have the choice of staying at home and looking after children if that is what they want. Decisions about the division of labour in any couple should be the result of discussion between both people. Both people should enjoy an equal status in a relationship: it must be a cooperative venture.

The writer, philosopher, and advocate of women’s rights, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 – 1797),has always been honoured by humanists. In her life and for a period following it she was, however,criticisedby the conservative press for blasphemy, and for having a child outside marriage. Her novels criticised what she viewed as the patriarchal institution of marriage and featured women having passionate, romantic friendships outside of marriage with both men and women. Her thinking, however, was simply far ahead of its time. She wanted women to be more than mere wives and instead to be better‘companions’ to their husbands:

‘Make women rational creatures, and free citizens, and they will quickly become good wives; - that is, if men do not neglect the duties of husbands and fathers.’

She therefore fought for women to have the same fundamental rights as men, including the right to be educated in order that they might truly achieve what they were capable of:

‘I do not wish them [women] to have power over men; but over themselves.’

Humanist perspective: Families and relationships

Same-sex marriage and parenthood

In 2014 same-sex marriage was introduced in England, Scotland, and Wales, although not Northern Ireland. The British Humanist Association campaigned against a religious lobby, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and was thanked for its work during the final debate when the Bill was passed. Before this, in 2004 UK law allowed gay people to form legally recognised 'civil partnerships', with all the same legal obligations, rights, and protections as marriages.

Some people have opposed such changes, but to many humanists, this recognition of the equal rights of all couples seems perfectly just and reasonable. Humanist celebrants had already conducted same-sex weddings for decades before they held any legal status. Humanists are not limited in their thinking by tradition, sacred texts, or figures of authority, and so find it difficult to see anything wrong with same-sex marriages as they clearly cause nobody anyharm. It is simply unfair to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriages: firstly the tax advantages and inheritance rights, but also the recognition that their relationships are just as loving and valid as those between couples of the opposite sex. To deny this would be a form of unfair discrimination.

‘Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.’

Jason Wakefield, New Humanist magazine

(written before the introduction of same-sex marriage)

For many humanists, the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to have children, by adoption or assisted conception, should simply be a question about their ability to be good parents. There is no reason to suspect that a same-sex couple would be any better or worse parents or provide any more or less love for their children than two parents of the opposite sex.

Some people highlight the potential difficulties that the children from non-traditional families may face, including social problems like teasing and a lack of acceptance, and psychological problems like not knowing who their biological parents are. However, these problems are not exclusive to the children of same-sex parents. Nor are they insurmountable. For many humanists, the best way to deal with such problems is not to deny same-sex parenting but to work to make society more open-minded and tolerant of difference.

Humanist marriages:

Humanist marriages have been legal in Scotland since 2005. The proportion of humanist marriages has grown rapidly since their legal recognition and is now higher than Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic marriages. Scotland is one of several countries, from Norway to Australia to parts of the USA, thatrecognise humanist ceremonies as legal.

However, humanist marriages are not legally recognised in England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. A humanist wedding must be preceded or followed by a marriage in a register office for the marriage to be legal. Many humanists feel this unfairly discriminates against the non-religious. If the law changed, then this would give non-religious people the same choice that religious people have of a meaningful ceremony conducted by someone who shares their values and approach to life.