When we use the word today, we mean "one sex partner at a time." What we fail to grasp is how far that is from the meaning of the word.
The word comes from the Latin monogamia which was derived from the Greek word of the same construction. It is a two-part word. The "mono" refers (obviously) to "one" and the "gamy" refers to "marriage." Monogamy, then, refers to "married to one." We actually know this. We understand "bigamy" ("bi" = "two") means "married to two people" and "polygamy" ("poly" = "many") means "married to more than one." In neither of these two cases does anyone think in terms of "having sex with two" or "having sex with many." We understand that it means "married." We just ... forget in the case of "monogamy."
Why is that? Well, I'd assume that it's partly because of our general floccinaucinihilipilification of marriage in general. (I had to throw that word in there. It means "the estimation of something as valueless.") We have, over the past 60 years, worked hard to diminish "marriage" until it is mostly meaningless. In 1900 the divorce rate was 0.7 per 1,000 people. In 1960 (actually down from a rash of divorces after World War II) the rate was 2.2 per 1,000 people. In 1967 "no-fault divorce" came home to roost and by 1970 the rate was at 3.5 and by 1980 it was at 5.2 per 1,000 people. It is interesting to note that, on one hand, the divorce rate had dropped to 3.4, but that can be misleading since marriage rates have plummeted so greatly. From 1900 to 1998 they were between 8.5 and 12 marriages per 1,000 people, but by 2012 it was down to 6.8 per 1,000 people. Obviously with marriage at an all-time low, divorces would drop significantly as well. Factor in the growing demand for "let me be me" thinking -- "me first" ideology -- and the embrace of contraception (providing for sex without consequences and a diminishing of reproduction as part of the definition of marriage) and the approval of "no-fault divorce" alongside the devaluation of marriage entirely as shown in the marriage rates, it would stand to reason marriage has lost its meaning. By "meaning" I don't just mean its definition. I mean its significance, importance, value, solidity, everything that goes into what marriage means.
When California was debating the first "no-fault divorce" laws, they feared it would allow men to walk out more freely than before. As it turns out, 80% of divorces are filed by women. Years ago I read that in 1980 for every 600 men that initiated the divorce 1 wife would initiate the divorce. In 1990 that statistic was 12:1 ... where for every one man who initiated it 12 women would initiate it. The numbers may not be the same, but the principle is. Where "sacrifice for the greater good" was once a virtue, now it's "my own good." The decline of the "stay-at-home mom" to the two-income family makes more women self-sustaining without a husband to help. And marriage bleeds a bit more.
"What difference would it make to you if they legalized gay marriage?" was always the question put to me. It was not an adequate question. We've shifted "monogamy" -- married to one person for life -- to "married to one person at a time" to "having sex with one person at a time." Marriage is devalued to a minimum. Now they're fighting for the next step that those rotten LGBTQ folks neglected -- removing the stigma of "consensual non-monogamy." Because "If it feels good, do it" has replaced marriage, monogamy, self-sacrifice, and more. Because "what I want to do" defines what is good. Sexual morality used to be subject to values like virtue, sacrifice, and the welfare of others, but no more. And when "if it feels good, do it" becomes the ultimate moral good, you can expect "kill someone if I feel like it" or "you owe me a living wage" or the like to follow right on its heels. Like we're seeing today.
11 comments:
I saw a trailer for a special by (I think) CBS news about this very topic and how people are trying to expand the definition of monogamy to include multiple people in a relationship. As you're aware, this concept of serial monogamy has been quite the rage among the gay community for a few years.
They may have coined the term, but it has been the norm for some time now among heterosexuals as well. (In fact, for most of human history.) Sometimes more; sometimes less.
Oh I agree. I'm pointing out that when non gay folx argued that gay marriage was a good thing because it would encourage monogamy, they naively assumed the traditional meaning of the term, while multiple studies demonstrate that traditional monogamy wasn't the goal at all.
It's those inconvenient definitions that are the problem.
The (I think) CBS special is simply one more attempt to normalize this new concept of monogamy. In much the same way that folx are re branding pedophilia to make normalize it and make it more palatable.
Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that Satan's work of erasing any sense of actual monogamy has been ongoing for a long time.
A while back, after hearing "literally" liberally sprinkled through conversations with millenials, I looked it up and found that the new definition of "literally" is "not literally." That's our new approach. Take the word, reverse it, and use it to mean the same thing. Like using "monogamy" to many "LOTS of concurrent sex."
In so many instances, you have to wonder is this is just the natural progression of the English language adapting over time, or if it's an intentional move to advance an agenda.
Some is language creep, I'm sure, but when marriage is as important to God as Scripture indicates, I think this would be an intentional agenda.
I agree, it’s both but I do think the recent trend is more intentional.
I do want to clarify, I’m not suggesting that gay folx have a monopoly on serial monogamy, just that there was an active attempt to stress the positive monogamy aspect of gay marriage, when there is plenty of evidence that traditional monogamy is a high priority in that community.
But to be clear, serial monogamy is a problem no matter what the orientation of those who practice it.
Do you mean there is "plenty of evidence that traditional monogamy is not a high priority in that community"? I'm guessing that's what you meant. Some in that community have made no bones about it. Some have said, "We want to have marriage for ourselves so we can destroy it." I'm certainly not suggesting it's an overall idea, but it is, nonetheless, out there.
I’m suggesting that there is plenty of evidence that says that there is a significant percentage of that community is not interested in traditional monogamy. Which leads to the conclusion that using the monogamy argument in favor of marriage equity wasn’t really what they were aiming for.
I thought that was what you meant. "Monogamish" I think is what they're shooting for.
Cute names just mask the reality of the concept. But the data is pretty clear.
Post a Comment