Does buddhism allow for families? I have studied Buddhism for a few years now, on and off, and this one question has been bugging me for a long time.  Please correct me if I am wrong, however, the way that I understand it is that Buddhism is all about the cessation of suffering. In order to end suffering, we first need to end attachment.  By being attached to objects, we suffer when something happens to those objects.  Instead of connecting and attaching to the objects and perpetuating suffering in our lives, we should instead focus on the here and now and concentrate on existing rather than material things.

My question is: How does buddhism allow for the existence of families?  I cannot think of a more connected and attached system than the familial system.  Significant others, children, siblings are all people that we can't help but love and feel attached to.  I just can't seem to fathom a family that does not end in suffering when a member dies.  Just to be clear, I am searching for an authoritative answer from a legitimate source, not a personal anecdote or opinion.
I don't know of any canonical source explicitly and precisely dealing with this question. To start, here's what Bhikkhu Bodhi writes on the Pali Canon1:


  "Within the Pāli Canon, the texts known as the Nikāyas have the special value of being a single cohesive collection of the Buddha’s teachings in his own words. These teachings cover a wide range of topics; they deal not only with renunciation and liberation, but also with the proper relations between husbands and wives, the management of the household, and the way countries should be governed. They explain the path of spiritual development—from generosity and ethics, through mind training and the realization of wisdom, all the way up to the attainment of liberation."


What we know from these discourses and from the general structure of the buddhist communities is that:


laity (people holding jobs, wealth and family) is an important part of the buddhist community since the Buddha's time: they support monks with food, cloth, medicine, etc. (There's much more to be said here, though)
The Buddha taught to lay people how to have a proper lay life (instead of restricting himself to ask them to renounce family and wealth and become monks/nuns). That is, one conductive to good destination or Nirvana. One study2 found 208 suttas addressed to laity in the pali canon.


Now, what we can infer from the discourses is that Buddhism does not present a teleology, an ideal like "every being should be in Nirvana" as if everything else was essentially wrong (e.g. have a family, have kids, indulge in all kinds of worldly activities, etc).

What it does is recognize aspects of our reality, present an explanation for our essential anxiety, and offer a way to resolve it or diminish it, if one is so inclined to accept it and is willing to do something about it -- under various degrees of interest (from abandoning unwholesome actions of body/speech/mind, through meditation, or finally to deciding to abandon wealth and possessions to become a monk/nun). I'd say this is the character of every sutta.

Since any wholesome action is conductive to Nirvana, any wholesome action is a step forward, regardless if one is a monk or a husband. Thus Buddhism is regarded as a "path": it's a process. Furthermore, it classifies many stages of attainment, according to what kind of attachment has been eliminated.

Hence, some teachings are presented culminating in Nirvana. Other teachings are presented culminating in "a better destination after death" (e.g. some heavens where there's less suffering). If one is unwilling to abandon all attachments, Buddha dhamma still teaches how to ease suffering (and perhaps appear in a better place -- and maybe there, attain Nirvana). In any case, all buddha-dhamma teachings, ultimately, converge to Nirvana.



1 Bodhi, In the Buddha's words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon

2 Kumaratne, Manohari Savithri, Buddha's teachings applicable to the laity: Case studies from the Pali Nikayas