 |
So what?! Many here grew up reading Heinlein and most of his heroes had multiple wives and multiple husbands. Yet we're not all sex fiends . . . |
Posted on 02/28/2006 3:49:16 PM PST by wagglebee
HBO is set to launch an entertainment series that openly promotes polygamy. Beginning March 12, the “bold new series” Big Love will replace the Sopranos on the station’s Sunday night line-up.
Starring Hollywood’s Jim Paxton, Big Love attempts to show the “endearingly normal” side of a typical American man who “happens” to have three wives. The producers worked hard to ensure they found an All-American actor to play the lead role, reports the Star Telegraph, to minimize any potential “creepiness” of the material.
Mark V. Olsen and Will Scheffer, the show’s scriptwriters, are both gay. Although the producers deny there was any pro-gay agenda behind making the show, reviews have said the show’s material contains numerous references to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered themes, and is a showcase for “gay apologia.” Even before the release date, gay activists have seized upon the show as a vehicle for promoting the legitimacy of gay “marriage.”
Tom Hanks’ production company produces the show, with Hanks acting as executive producer. Hanks’ recent work includes his starring role in the anti-Catholic movie The Da Vinci Code, which will be released in the U.S. on May 19.
The Mormon community has distanced itself from the series. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a press release in response to media coverage of the series, stating that polygamy has been banned by the Mormon Church since 1890, and any groups continuing the practice today “have no association whatever” with the church.
"The Church has long been concerned about the continued illegal practice of polygamy, and in particular about reports of child and wife abuse emanating from polygamous communities today. It will be regrettable if this program, by making polygamy the subject of entertainment, minimizes the seriousness of that problem,” the press release said.
The church requested that HBO issue a disclaimer at the beginning of the program, dissociating the practice of polygamy from the Mormon community. HBO has agreed to comply with that request.
Along with a humorous and approving portrayal of polygamy, and a tacit promotion of homosexuality, reviewers have stated the program relies on raunchy and explicit sexual “humor” to carry the story along. Jokes about the lead character’s reliance on Viagra to help him cope with three wives are central to the humor.
An excerpt from the program’s opening scene contains a crude and sexually explicit conversation between four teenage girls, and ends with an implied lesbian exchange between two of the girls. (See transcript here: http://www.ldsfilm.com/TVchars/BigLove.html)
Polygamy...why dont I just shoot myself?
Well this explains a lot.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
"HBO Promotes Polygamy With “Big Love” Series"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail wagglebee.
To be included in or removed from the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PINGLIST, please FreepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2K.
One is too many.
The down-side of multiple wives; is multiple mother-in-laws.
You think you have it bad now? Imagine having 3 of them gang up on ya.
or 3 wives all naggin at ya at the same time..sheesh..
I really hope this show does as well as the Book of Daniel...sounds like it really deserves it.
|
So what?! Many here grew up reading Heinlein and most of his heroes had multiple wives and multiple husbands. Yet we're not all sex fiends . . . |
I don't know. Anyone looking for an affront or a reaffirmation of a show produced by the same people that gave us OZ and "Real Sex" will either find it, or need to examine themselves......
Uh, not to be contrarian, but polygamy worked just fine for the men in the bible. Not sure what it has to do with gay marriage.
Sisters? Orphans?
(Yes, I realize sisters can mean yet another deviancy, but we're not there - yet)
I for one am glad I do NOT subscribe to Homo Box Office. I can remember a time when it was actually a movie channel.
And therein lies the solution. If the show sucks people will leave HBO and it will be cancelled or HBO loses money keeping it on.
Not sure how multiple husbands would work on a wide scale. Before we were metrosexualized into irrelevancy, most men simply could not live with the daily competition for supremacy in the family or in the bedroom. Jealousy would lead directly to physical violence on a frequent basis. Females fight far dirtier and more subtly than that. =^)
Even in nature, it is common for a few select males to take numerous female mates. The statistical reproductive reality is simply that numbers can be maximized with more females than males (unless the female eats the male after mating, of course! LOL).
(And really, would any woman want to deal with the mess and aggravation of multiple males living together on a daily basis? Any woman who has seen a dorm room would reject any such notion reflexively.)
(And would any male want to live with the kind of guys that would be okay with this kind of arrangement?)
Most of the writers of these sitcoms are gay (The recently cancelled "Daniel" series was, too). Even the writers of "Sex and the City" were gay men projecting their lifestyle on women.
Another piece of TV cr@p that our family will not be watching.
I bet Bill will be surprised to hear that Jim has been recast as his character in the series.
But it was a great PSA because now I know if a tornado is about to hit the little tin shack I'm in, all I have to do is hold on really tight to something and I'll be okay. /s
I saw that so long ago that I don't remember much about the movie. Did the alien eat him up?? Did it??? Huh...huh...? Maybe I'll have to rent it again if it did. ;o) (I'm a sucker for a happy ending!)
Every polygamous marriage I can think of in the Bible (Abraham with Sarah + Hagar, Jacob with Leah + Rachel + 2 concubines, David with Michal + Abigail + Bathsheba, Solomon with his crowds of dynastic wives) resulted in extremely long-lasting strife between the wives and among the half-brother and half-sister descendants. Those kids were, mostly, a mess.
Can anyone thing of a polygamous marriage in the Bible where this was NOT the case?
Finally, in Malachi 2, you read this:
"[T]he LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring."
This at least implies that (1) God wants every man to be satisfied with one wife, his first wife, the "wife of the covenant," and (2)that's the source of godly offspring, maybe a way to avoid the terrible Isaac-vs-Ishmael type rivalries that disfigured Old Testament history.
I'd say God's weighing in here against polygamy.
What does this have to do with gay "marriage"? Well, for one thing, anything that twists and stretches the definition of marriage helps break down the "norm" and make all deviations seem more unobjectionable.
And secondly, at least among gay males, marriage is rarely faithful and exclusive: as long as they're still living together, they seem to think t's OK to screw around with other men. Arguably that's infidelity, not polygamy; but either way, it's a breakdown of the monogamous norm.
I think he survived the aliens.
Wait, pedophilia is next on the pervert list.
Ok. There's an agenda clue if I ever saw one.
Don't forget Hagar's son Ishmael, the descendents of whom are now being a pain in the "beep" in the middle east....
"It was foretold that lshmael would be “a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. And he shall dwell over against all his brethren” (Genesis 16:12)".
"Don't forget Hagar's son Ishmael, the descendents of whom are now being a pain in the "beep" in the middle east...."
That's exactly what I had in mind.
I'm a conservative Christian. I know Biblical precepts of marriage between one man and one woman, and I agree.
But I also observe that certain peoples of certain faiths are far out-breeding those of mine. From my point of view, out-breeding, if it continues, can have only one outcome.
Now, Paul said very clearly that he wished all Christians were as he, celibate. In other words, he wished children raised in a Christian homes would vanish, and I can't help but think, along with Christianity.
I don't agree with Paul; I wonder if Saul wasn't peeking out in that instant.
I wonder, if a man, who is of a mind, and willing and able to not just financially but intimately, too (not just sex) support more than one wife, who all are of the same mind, it may be to our advantage to alter the custom.
Polygamy has a long history of being an ancient remedy for population problems. It has a perception today of being "sexist", which, incidentally, is a great example of the inherent failure of the word.
But, the facts of material reality say that the survival of a group of one man and many women is much greater one one woman and many men. Every social maxim has to rest the bedrock of reality or it's not a maxim; it's a pipedream.
I feel that we best entertain the thought.
The most important fact is that Big Love is not replacing the Sopranos, it's on afterwards. HBO needs a Big Lead-in to goofy show.
Not satire, I have seen the previews. Won't be watching.
And this isn't the end of it. It'll get worse and worse until it's either stopped, or all moral order is destroyed.
"Bigamy is one wife too many. So is monogamy."
--Ambrose Bierce
Bill Paxton's best (worst) lines:
"It's a Level 4 Twister"
"I could eat the @$$ out of a dead rhinoceros"
"Would a spy pee himself?"
Take my wives, please. :-D
While I have HBO, I plan to watch a Ron Popeil infomercial-fest on the nights that "Big Lurve" is to be on.
Yawn. I'll stick with the Sopranos. At least we know what's in store for Vito once Tony finds out he's a trifle gay. It's going to be a SMOKIN' season. Bring it ON!
Polygamy is less illogical than homosexual "marriage." Next up for normalization: sex with teens, then pedophilia and incest.
And since women who live together tend to synchonize their cycles this is an inevitability
That's immediately after "The Sopranos."
When God weighs in against something, He's not ambiguous or unclear.
Thou shalt nots are pretty clear. So are warnings about witchcraft (drug abuse), beatiality, incest, and homosexuality are pretty doggone clear and there is no refuting them.
Having slaves and mulitple wives are not condemned the same way and those who don't like those practices have to interpret select Bible passages in light of their modern biases, not in light of the cultures of the time.
That's an interesting line of argument. If I may push it one or two steps further, let me say this:
The Jewish "culture of the time" (at the time of the writing of the Book of Malachi, the last book of the Neviim ---prophets--- section in the Jewish Scripture) was, as far as I understand it, already turning against poygamy.
I am admittedly unclear as to exactly when and why that happened, but the words of Malachi himself reflect an urgency to stick with the "wife of one's youth" and to raise up godly offspring with her.
But let's think further about the development of doctrine in Scripture --- the progressive nature of revelation.
The Bible (unlike the Koran) is understood to be a progressive revelation; in other words, God's will and purposes are only gradually revealed. When particular issues are obscure or contradictory, the classic approach is to "let Scripture interpret Scripture" --- in other words, to let later or clearer teachings illuminate earlier or more obscure readings.
In the case of polygamy, we can see that
• (1) God established one-man-one-woman marriage before sin ever made its appearance in the world (Genesis 1, 2);
• (2)God did not establish polygamy, but --- centuries later --- He did allow his revelation to come to people who were already polygamous (Genesis 11 and later);
• (3) in the case of Abraham, he gave His principal promises and blessings only through the offspring of his first, legitimate wife, Sarah; and the narrative shows the continual strife that came though the offspring of polygamous unions.
The last prophetic book of the Old Testament, Malachi, speaks of God being a witness to the marriage with the first wife, the wife of one's youth, implying that this is the sacred unbreakable union.
And then in the New Testament, Jesus clearly says that divorce was allowed by Moses because people's hearts were hard (sin), but that God's will is for marriage to be like it was "in the Beginning" (Genesis) when it was one-man-one-woman. This establishes a principle with consequences against polygamy as well as against divorce.
St. Paul's teaching that the union of husband and wife is like that of Christ and the Church clearly indicates that the kind of marriage acceptable to God is faithful and monogamous.
Thus Christianity has never supported polygamy; and Jewish society hasn't been polygamous for over 2,000 years.
In a similar way, God never ordered slavery, but did allow His revelation to be given to a society in which slavery was already an established institution. He later carried out His greatest and most splendid work in ancient history by taking the side of the slaves and freeing the Hebrews from their Egyptian taskmasters.
Later teaching of Hebrew Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that they are not to oppress the poor, or the sojourner, or the foreigner, "because you yourselves were once slaves in Egypt." In other words, they are not to force socially marginal or powerless people into slavery.
Centuries later, in St. Paul's letter to Philemon, we have the matured teaching that Philemon should welcome back his runaway manservant, Onesimus, not as a slave, but "as something better, a dear brother." This again shows the progressive nature of Biblical revelation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.