Film Director James Cameron, who anointed himself “king of the world” after his movie, Titanic swept the Oscars, touts his latest film, Avatar, in an interview with the Edmonton Sun. I think they call their paper the Sun because they see so little of the real thing up there during much of the year. But I digress.
The story recounts:
The scope of Avatar, which reunites Cameron with Aliens star Sigourney Weaver, is perhaps not surprising. After all, the filmmaker, who was born in the mining town of Kapuskasing, Ont., and raised near Niagara Falls, Ont., has pushed the envelope throughout his career.
He burst onto the movie-making scene with the 1984 box-office monster The Terminator, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton, whom Cameron went on to marry and divorce (he’s currently married to wife No. 5, Titanic star Suzy Amis). . .
I have no doubt that if Cameron were to visit Austin, Texas, Gov. Rick Perry would hand him the key to the city. Will somebody please help me understand why it is OK for Cameron to marry and abandon four women in succession and then marry a fifth but it’s not OK for Warren Jeffs to marry five, divorce none, and continue to support them and their children?
Which of these two lifestyles choices — polygamy and serialygamy — has the greater capacity to harm children, society and the economy?
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Bob 09.06.08 at 11:36 am
Well said. Bigamy laws are out of date and overbroad. One can live with 100 women in sexual relationships and all of them can bear your children, but if you don’t call it marriage it’s okay. There’s something wrong here–and the something wrong is–I intentionally repeat myself–bigamy laws are out of date.
We need well crafted bigamy laws that will prevent fraud on those who contract for marriage thinking that they are entering a one on one relationship, but we do not need bigamy laws that can be used to attack people such as the FLDS or Muslims.
Hugh McBryde 09.06.08 at 12:50 pm
It’s all about equality. I have come late in life to the realization that God’s world does not include that concept. The afterlife? Yes. Here and now? No, we are told there are different roles. We are reminded that the first in this life may be last in the next, and vice versa, which should give us long pause on how we treat women. We may very well be electing our rulers in the next life by abusing them in this.
Gravitas 09.06.08 at 3:09 pm
Well taken, Hugh.
As we eliminate barriers, however, the next wave is homosexual marriage, already underway in Mass. and CA. According to statistics, gay marriage is virtually always “open” marriage; few gay relationships are ever exclusive. It is all about personal gratification, not trust. Fidelity is considered oppressive, even in allegedly committed relationships — and the majority of gays over a lifetime have upwards of 500 sex partners. Even if one can justify homosexual relations between two people — how does anyone justify 500 and more? (a high percentage have upwards of 1,000 partners over a lifetime.)
It is not a private matter as some will argue; the health issues, at a minimum, are a legitimate community concern. There is much more to consider than AIDS. And just as children of serial marriage between opposite sexes are negatively impacted, so are the children of gays — with the added problem of having gender confusion to deal with.
Defending gay rights, especially where children become involved, is a two-edged sword.
Crusty 09.06.08 at 3:54 pm
Oh, but there are so many more. Just among Hollywood there’s Artie Shaw with 8 and David Carradine with 6. The list of those with 5 is long including Dennis Hopper and Kenny Rogers. And these are just the men, who are, btw, outdone by the women.
Oh wait, these are marriages. Try adding in all of the Hollywood relationships that have produced kids without marriage. But wait, there’s more. just look around your own neighborhood and city.
Excellent Post Kurt.
Joey 09.06.08 at 4:31 pm
Don’t mormons marry for time and all eternity? In that case mormons would consider them all polygamists? Point being: marriage means different things to different people.
Jeny 09.06.08 at 4:44 pm
Hugh McBryde { 09.06.08 at 12:50 pm } It’s all about equality. I have come late in life to the realization that God’s world does not include that concept. The afterlife? Yes. Here and now? No, we are told there are different roles. We are reminded that the first in this life may be last in the next, and vice versa, which should give us long pause on how we treat women. We may very well be electing our rulers in the next life by abusing them in this.
==================
As my very wise Mama has always says–”Careful of the toes you step on today, they may belong to the [bleep] you have to kiss tomorrow.
This saying of hers is very true, as I have found at work, church and just making friends and acquaintances in life. I try to keep this in mind as I go through my days–but I don’t always make the mark. I have had the occasion where it came back to bite me when I didn’t it the mark.
Jeny
Jeny 09.06.08 at 4:45 pm
Question: Why isn’t polyamory amongst married coiuples prosecuted?
Just curious. Thoughts anyone?
old young one 09.07.08 at 10:24 pm
Jeny: Because those without sin couldn’t begin the stoning?
someone just might ups and tell on someone else and it’d be game over?
Disciple 09.08.08 at 12:05 pm
Excellent post, Kurt.
Point well taken.
Hope society is listening.
Jeny 09.09.08 at 6:45 am
9 Disciple { 09.08.08 at 12:05 pm } Excellent post, Kurt.
Point well taken.
Hope society is listening.
=================
Society isn’t listening….
Sometimes I get the feeling the only people in “society” listening are the handful of bloggers who have consistently stood up for the FLDS and their rights as Americans.
Everyone’s so busy sucking up the lies of the State and the lies from the media, without bothering to research and read and learn the truth themselves, that there’s no “listening” to be done.
Jeny