Doctrinally, I pretty much second Thomas. I can hardly see how the scriptures are twisted to support the view of God in the way that is being supposed.
A few points that concern me socially, in the sense of one's views of other people-
First, the issue of the necessity of marriage. From a social standpoint, this is just rubbish. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is. People do not marry for a plethora of reasons, and this does not mean they are defective in any way. Some people never meet a person they wish to marry. Some prefer to dedicate their lives to service to the broader society. Some people are considered unattractive and have no hope of marriage. None of that limits their salvation. I have an uncle who is severely handicapped and he cannot marry or even support himself, but he has a very pure faith, trusting God and being very patient through all his suffering. It is ridiculous to say that he, by virtue of his handicaps, would be incapable of demonstrating the Christian life and coming into full salvation.
From a spiritual perspective, it becomes even odder to think of God and salvation in this way. God is not both masculine and feminine, but rather beyond human distinctions of gender. While we may relate to God in a way that anthropomorphizes God, making God more understandable, comfortable, or relateable to ourselves, it is our own limitations that cause us to do this, and it is through God's grace that God allows for this comfort. But we should not confuse our experience of God, limited as it is by our human condition, with God Itself. Although, as a Christian Druid, I can appreciate the imagery of God-Goddess union, this is not a correct assessment of God's true nature. Rather, as I see it, it is a byproduct of my own anthropomorphization of God and, more concretely, a bias of my intellect in relating more to things like myself (animals) than to things unlike myself (bacteria or plants).
Male and female is not the whole order of creation, but rather only a part of creation (complex animals) and even then, creation provides more options than only two. Just because creation offers a glimpse into God's Being, does not mean that it is an easy book to read. Not only does the concept about God soleil offers fail to be evident in scripture, it also fails to be evident in nature, unless one puts blinders on an is selective about one's evidence.
Coming out of a tradition that reads the "Book of Nature" as sacred scripture itself (that is, sees creation itself as sacred and seeks to have understanding of the Divine through experiencing and observing creation)- this type of "reading" requires discernment and a hard look at one's pre-existing biases just as interpreting the Bible does. Otherwise, one sees what one wants to see.
Now, I will tell you that I'm married and I love my husband very much. I also am from the mystical bent in Christianity. In no way, in any of my experience of God, have I ever had any doubt as to my priorities- first to God, and then to all else. My husband is not "my other half," but rather a whole and complete child of God all on his own. The kind of marriage soleil describes sounds, to me, like a codependent one. I had my relationship with God long before my relationship with my husband; I am not made whole by marriage but by Christ. The "other half" of myself that I would be missing is the divine half, the half offered by the grace of God in Christ, my Savior. Marriage does not save me. Christ saves me. And the point of life is not to necessarily have physical children, but spiritual children. If one lives one's life for God, it is inevitable that other people will awaken to God through one's testimony, which is one's life. And this is providing a light on the path toward awakening to being a child of God, it is midwifing the birth of people who are awake to God's love, which is not marital, but rather unconditional. Monks, nuns, saints, and so on, have not necessarily removed themselves from the world, but rather are in it in a different way. For most people, marriage and family is the temporary comfort that can take the place of God unless one is careful about this. Those that choose not to marry take on a greater challenge because they choose to face the world without this temporary comfort, facing the deep questioning and "dark night of the soul," the challenges of a spiritual life, without anyone to distract them, to provide escape and comfort. I can say honestly that I am very happy to be married to my husband, but I can see that he provides a comfort and an escape when I am burdened in my spiritual life. And as a result, I don't have to face these challenges head-on as I would if I were a nun. I can put them aside and rest in my marriage, but this means that I am not developing as completely in my capacity to rest in Christ alone. This does not mean that my spiritual life is in any way negated or that I think I made the wrong choice. I am who I am, and God knows me better than I know myself. I believe I am meant to be married. But I do not kid myself about the "ease" of a monastic life, because I am enough of a mystic to know that it isn't all about escapism or fluffy goodness. It's hard work and sometimes it is crushingly difficult.
All that said, while Thomas provided doctrinal discussion, my own views are as a result of my ongoing experience of God Itself. I had a very, very distinct vision about five years ago in which God demanded that I prioritize God as my first and only lasting need, recognizing all others as gifts and blessings, but not mistaking them for my deliverance. This was done in a beautiful and very fulfilling way, a loving way- demonstrating to me the fullness of God's grace. To me, this was a peak experience- there is nothing I experience in my earthly life that comes close to that joy and love- and I understood in a visceral way that God is complete and, if I am trusting of God, I am made complete.
I will leave with a Drudic version of the Trinity that I think may help explain why doctrinally, the family model is something created by God, but not God-in-Itself... The ancient Druidic Trinity was two-fold; first, that God and Goddess produced the Mabon, the Light Child. At first blush, this seems to be your model. But this was not the full story- many Goddesses were themselves triplicate, having an interrelationship within themselves, and furthermore, God and Goddess were considered whole unto themselves, not halves of a single diety. One prominent modern Druidic take on Trinity, operating off the "Father, Son, Spirit" model was: the Uncreated One, the Creative Word, and the Spirit that is the Inspirer.
In this, we see perhaps more pointedly what the Bible tells us about Christ, what it means that Christ was begotten and not made. The Trinity is, as Thomas puts it, Love. And as such, it is not loving as an action, but as a quality of being. The Word is Creative (all things created through Christ), not created. There is nothing in this model that looks like the human family, and that is the point. God is God, and this is, at some level, supremely not human. We are made in God's image, but God is not made in ours. It is somewhat a mystery how our image relates to that of God, and so we must be careful not to limit God through our own imaginings that God is like ourselves. True faith is loving God with all our heart despite not fully understanding God- that is what takes trust. It is recognizing our own limitations and recognizing that God is best suited to judge the needs of every person for spiritual development, not ourselves. It is trust in a supreme Being that we cannot ever fully comprehend or know, but that we can experience and to whom we can choose to surrender.
