AND WHY NOT POLYGAMY?
Some of us have been suggesting that if the concept of marriage is amended so that it is no longer just a matter of one man and one woman that we're opening a can of worms that is messier than what the advocates of marriage for homosexual couples can imagine. Now Professor Jonathan Turley (George Washington Law School) argues in a USA Today article that we're inconsistent if we prohibit polygamy.

I'm seeing worms -- lots and lots of worms.

Apart from the issues raised by theologians (which non-believing society cannot accept), does our society have a vested interest in maintaining the traditional Western marriage standards? Why or why not?

Interestingly, polygamy is the most controversial issue in the African churches today. Many African societies continue to practice polygamy but when people become Christians they are expected to become monogamous. So, what happens if a man is converted and he already has three wives? Does he put two out on the street, along with their children? It is a complicated issue. And generally the practice has been to compromise and allow such men to keep their wives but take no more.

Some otherwise conservative Evangelicals see the issue of "homosexual unions" in similar light. Isn't it better to compromise than to break up a loving relationship between two damaged people who can't change their sexual orientation -- putting some guy out on the street? Sure it is less than what God intended. But we live in a fallen world and have to deal with the implications of our fallenness. Or so the argument goes.

What do you think? Where is this whole marriage thing going? I see worms -- lots and lots of worms.