My answer to the title question was, immediately, that monogamy is already not a norm. Kudos to Burk for recognizing this. As he says: “No-fault divorce laws have given us unilateral divorce-on-demand as the norm. Thus the norm of lifelong monogamy has given way to serial monogamy over multiple marriages. That is why our culture is quite accepting of a man who has multiple wives—so long as he has them one at a time.”
However, brickbats to Burk for having the gender completely wrong. For many years now, the overwhelming majority of no-fault divorce filers have been women — as much as 80% of divorces are initiated by wives. And, no, the reason for the imbalance is not that husbands are so ill-behaved; very few of those divorces are for serious wrongs such as adultery or abuse. It would be much more accurate to say that our culture is quite accepting of a woman who has multiple husbands, so long as she has them one at a time. Unfortunately, shamefully, what is true of our culture is much too true of our churches as well.
However, brickbats to Burk for having the gender completely wrong. For many years now, the overwhelming majority of no-fault divorce filers have been women — as much as 80% of divorces are initiated by wives. And, no, the reason for the imbalance is not that husbands are so ill-behaved; very few of those divorces are for serious wrongs such as adultery or abuse. It would be much more accurate to say that our culture is quite accepting of a woman who has multiple husbands, so long as she has them one at a time. Unfortunately, shamefully, what is true of our culture is much too true of our churches as well.
Maybe I missed this, but reading over Burk’s article several times, I don’t see where he says it’s either the men or the women initiating the divorces. He mentions how easy divorce is leading to “serial monogamy,” but I don’t see him deal anywhere with which side is initiating the divorce. He does briefly mention that society will accept a man having multiple wives if they are one at a time, but by saying so, he is not at all excusing women for doing the same thing.
My take here is that if we remember what marriage is for—not government getting into romance, but rather the protection of weaker persons and the next generation—homosexual “marriage” will not have much of an effect.
On the flip side, if we forget what marriage is for—in the church and as a society, as dmyers hints—then it does not matter if zero homosexuals get married, because we will have lost already. And I fear that is what most of the culture has done.
Discussion
NewMy answer to the title
My answer to the title question was, immediately, that monogamy is already not a norm. Kudos to Burk for recognizing this. As he says: “No-fault divorce laws have given us unilateral divorce-on-demand as the norm. Thus the norm of lifelong monogamy has given way to serial monogamy over multiple marriages. That is why our culture is quite accepting of a man who has multiple wives—so long as he has them one at a time.”
However, brickbats to Burk for having the gender completely wrong. For many years now, the overwhelming majority of no-fault divorce filers have been women — as much as 80% of divorces are initiated by wives. And, no, the reason for the imbalance is not that husbands are so ill-behaved; very few of those divorces are for serious wrongs such as adultery or abuse. It would be much more accurate to say that our culture is quite accepting of a woman who has multiple husbands, so long as she has them one at a time. Unfortunately, shamefully, what is true of our culture is much too true of our churches as well.
NewDivorce
Maybe I missed this, but reading over Burk’s article several times, I don’t see where he says it’s either the men or the women initiating the divorces. He mentions how easy divorce is leading to “serial monogamy,” but I don’t see him deal anywhere with which side is initiating the divorce. He does briefly mention that society will accept a man having multiple wives if they are one at a time, but by saying so, he is not at all excusing women for doing the same thing.
Dave Barnhart
NewMy take here is that if we
My take here is that if we remember what marriage is for—not government getting into romance, but rather the protection of weaker persons and the next generation—homosexual “marriage” will not have much of an effect.
On the flip side, if we forget what marriage is for—in the church and as a society, as dmyers hints—then it does not matter if zero homosexuals get married, because we will have lost already. And I fear that is what most of the culture has done.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.