Big Love or Big Pile of Crap?
Imagine having three wives. Imagine all the children. Take yourself to a place where there is all that nagging and credit card bills. Yikes.
HBO has taken us to this place. I think I’m being fair when I say that this is the worst show that I’ve ever seen. Even if they were to digitally remove every love scene involving Bill Paxton (or is it Bill Pullman?), I would still hate this show. After watching the first episode last night, I spent about 5 minutes thinking over where the show might go with possible storylines and each and every one of them were crap. Avoid it like the plague.
Now, the idea of multiple wives intrigues me. I’ve always dreamed of having an obscene number of children and that would be greatly facilitated by having multiple “baby makers.” I think the costs would outweigh the benefits on this one though. For instance, how much time would be wasted on the phone? Imagine having to tell each of them how your day went and, even worse, having to listen to how their day was. Double yikes.
Also, I should probably work on finding a first wife before I focus in on finding my auxiliary wives.
posted by Iconoclast @ 8:40 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I challenge you to, um, challenge me.
I just happened to stumble upon this blog and started reading it.
First of all I guess that I don't really object to Polygamy because it is a tradition of another religion. Do I plan on going out tomorrow and marrying three different people?!? HELL NO! However, I guess I don't have the basis to judge other religious beliefs....now I know that's going to open up a whole other can of worms...but whatever, we're all entitled to our beliefs.
On the same point, I see where Cannon was going with his blog. I personally don't see the connection between the two because while polygamy is approved by a religious society...Homosexual marriage is not. In fact, Homosexuals are looking for LEGAL marriage rights, not religous. I guess I just don't see the big deal in two people who love each other having LEGAL rights in their relationship.
Now, I value everyone's beliefs, but that's just what I think! Anyhow, I'll look forward to stumbling apon the Pancake Breakfast again!
Wow. I just wanted to let everyone know that they should avoid this crappy show. Somehow this has turned into a debate on same-sex marriage.
Some quick thoughts:
*In terms of the actual debate in question here, one of the concerns with gay marriage (or civil unions)is that it will open up the door to polygamy. For us, the idea of polygamy being sanctioned by the state doesn't seem plausible. If you go back a hundred years ago, however, the idea of same-sex marriage would have been ridiculous.
*I agree with Chiclet's point on Mormons. They're all definitely insane and going to hell. I also agree with her hypothesis that they're also diseased.
*As for Cannon's more aggressive assertion that a nay vote for polygamy should be a nay vote for same-sex marriage, I don't necessarily agree. One of the assertions against gay marriage is definitional. A marriage, by defition, is a union between man and woman. Some view it simply as a union between two people who care for each other. The answer to the question of what the definition of marriage actually is is somewhat complicated.
*Back to the actual issue of polygamny. Sex with many women would be awesome. Although, I do suppose there is a "law of diminishing returns" factor in their somewhere, which I think Krafty K and Chiclet were hitting on. Other than that, I have about as much business talking about how a great relationship works as Dr. Phil selling a diet book.
*Speaking of Dr. Phil, how did he pull that whole diet book thing off? Last time I checked, Dr. Phil is a fat guy. Amazingly enough, it was a best-seller. The only explanation I have for this is my Moustache Confidence Theory. The basic crux of it is that people tend to have a lot of confidence in men with moustaches. I have many elaborate proofs for this theory, but I think I'll save that for its own post.
I think cannon is just jealous of what me and the Iconoclast have going, thus the gay marriage/C&k's "piss of the less conservative people" on the board slant.
With that in mind I would like to add, Dr. Phil is a jerk for publicizing peoples personal problems, using them for his own gain, and acting like he has the answers instead of having them work out their own answers - breaking the key rule of psychology (from what I know of it).
I think Iconoclast is a little harsh on the mormons, we all have your idiosyncratic behavior and their OCD doesn't exactly effect anyone (except perhaps the whole polygamy case we were discussing). Check out this - one of my favorite short essays along these lines.
Nacirema
I love him nonetheless, and Canon is not going to stop it. ;) And we will win an oscar next time big poppah.
Chicky, you're absolutely right. When I said that whole nonsense about multiple partners, I was trying to be flip and cool. Both of which, I'm not. As always, you're spot on.
As for the Hustle, I don't know how to quit you. I don't want to. But I don't know how to either. Don't let The Man (Cannon, I guess) get in the way of our love.
I'm going to be the first to agree with Canon on this board. It is not comparing Apple's and Oranges, as these are both questions on the definition of "Marriage".
In some ultra-liberal European Country recently (the exact one escapes me, as there are many), three people jointly decided to get married, two women and a man. The women were both bi-sexual and the man was straight. In this case, the women said that their love for each other and their husband was so great, why should society tell them who they should marry and who they shouldn't, and what the definition of Marriage is.
The traditional definition of marriage and the codified definition in many states boils down to "A union between one man and one woman". Both the Gay marraige debate and the poligamy debate boil down to the definition of the term. In the gay marriage example, it is the "man/woman" part of the definition called into question. In the polygamy "debate", it is "one/many". The arguments are pretty much the same. Why should anyone tell a person that they can't love another and marry another and have all the legal benefits of that partnership.
Truth be told, polygamy has more historical legitimacy than gay marriage. Throughout history, there have been many societies that have defined polygamy as legally valid, but it is only in the last couple of years that gay marriage has been defined as legally valid (and then only by a rogue court).
The arguments are exactly the same. The difference between them is that one is politically correct and one is not. Modern-day intellectuals have decided that two men can get married, or two women, but not two men and a woman, or two women and a man. There is no real intellectual basis for distinguishing the two other than our own personal sensitivities and ideologies.
Sally,
Thanks for jumping in. This whole thread has become a hodgepodge of grievances, Mormom bashing, and Dr. Phil lambasting. Hell, even this SSM v. polygamy debate is a little off-topic.
Just wanted to throw out that there have been instances of things close to gay marriage in history (even hints of it in the church). Of course, they are distinguishable from our own conception of marriage, but it does go against many natural law arguments that are floating around. I don't put too much weight into the historical aspect because, if that logic played out, we'd never advance anywhere as a society.
I've written before on my own solution to the same-sex marriage problem (if you want to search for it, it's titled "Debate on Same-Sex Marriage). From a constitutional perspective, it's a sticky wickit (that's a technical term). The short version of my proposed plan is to remove the government from the marriage business and just hand out "civil union" licenses.
As for the differences in the argument for SSM and polygamy, if you walk a fine enough line within the current debate, you can probably distinguish the two. Although, I don't necessarily buy into it. The main crux would be that a child raised by many (more than two) parents would not be ideal, while one raised by the "traditional" two is what really works.
Post a Comment
<< Home