[Vodonaeva]

I guess my answer would be that there is a common objective, and a path that leads to that objective, and different people are at different points on the path.

Whether one has to become a monastic (or at least live like a monastic) to become enlightened...well, that's one of those questions that leads to a lot of heated argument on Buddhist forums. What I can say, personally, is that as a layperson with a relationship and a family I know very well that the household life is intertwined with what Buddhism identifies as the afflictions of samsara.

For example, family or spousal love is called tanha-pema or lobha-pema. And obviously anyone who is not celibate is involved with kama, or sensual craving. So traditionally, for the layperson, the goal has been to keep these things from dragging us into suffering, while planting the seeds of enlightenment.

Even though there is attachment -- pema and tanha -- for each other, people will not be thrown down to the lower woeful worlds if they get the support of wholesome deeds. For example, a stone sinks in water, but will float if carried on a boat. (Links here and
here...)

The Pali suttas say that a layperson can achieve the first and second stages of enlightenment (sotapanna and sakadagami) -- so it's not as though progress is impossible even though one hasn't ordained.

But I think the question in general becomes clearer if we understand that enlightenment=the uprooting of the afflictions. It's not a matter of what Buddhism allows or doesn't allow, according to some rule book. It's just that as long as one is involved with tanha, one is by definition not enlightened. And as long as one wants to be in a relationship, one is making the choice to be involved with tanha. The choice is not "wrong" -- but it places certain constraints. That's why I say it's a matter of being honest with ourselves and acknowledging our priorities.