[UUPoly-L] Bloggers debating re UUA and polyamory and ensuing comments

[Anita Wagner <imapolygirl@yahoo.com>]

So the debate seems to be spreading throughout the UU blogosphere.  Check this one out:
   
  http://boyinthebands.com/archives/who-loses-in-current-blogger-poly-debate/
   
  and this next one - to which I sit shaking my head at the following:
   
  "It's not my favorite choice and I think it is best practiced as a private thing, but I would certainly not object to polyamorous folks being active members of my church."
   
  What in the world does "I think it is best practiced as a private thing" mean?  That she fears we'll be fornicating in Sunday service?  That we are welcome as long as we don't make anyone uncomfortable by engaging UUs in a dialogue about us?  And how about the name of the post?   Interestingly, chalicechick never seems to actually address the polyamory ick factor she refers to there, though she links to an earlier post where it seems likely that she believes, because she read a blog of one person who claims to be poly but talks about her sex life that she thinks any of us who want to talk about polyamory want to talk about sex.      
   
  http://chalicechick.blogspot.com/2007/07/polyamory-and-ick-factor.html
   
  It turns out (thanks, Steve!) that the Massachusetts minister's name is Tom Schade - anyone know him?  
   
  Steve Caldwell has commented on his own blog at length attempting to straighten out some of the misinformation flying about in all this.  Someone going by the name Fausto is our harshest critic.  In a comment to Steve's blog post he says:
   
  "It is about whether a religious denomination ought broadly to endorse, support, or encourage polyamory, or consecrate polyamorous relationships, when the emotional and spiritual dangers are self-evident and the argument in favor is so far from persuasive."
   
  Sounds to me like it's time to bring out our best players and our best arguments if we want to win over anyone in all this.  It is untrue that there is no scientific data at all which can be relied upon in all this.  It's scanty, true, but not non-existant.  I'll contact Jim Fleckenstein of ITCR tomorrow for the best sources on this.  
   
  Hopefully some of our leaders here will get out the talking points and help bring some enlightenment into the debate.  Note that Fausto is using some heavy ammo - allegations that there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that polyamory is *not* indemically fraught with "emotional and spiritual dangers".  
   
  http://liberalfaith.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-really-dont-understand-aversion-to.html
   
  Fortunately, there are those weighing who are using the voice of reason:
   
  http://lareinacobre.net/2007/07/07/brief-thoughts-about-polyamory/
   
  Anita


--------------------------
Practical Polyamory - http://www.practicalpolyamory.com

Blogging on polyamory relationship skills, the polyamory community/movement, polyamory activism, and, even occasionally, on my own lovely poly life, at http://practicalpolyamory.blogspot.com