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

["Desmond Ravenstone" <gentlemonster@lycos.com>]

   Some points to consider in the ongoing discussion/debate (and forgive the
   length and relative rambling) ...

   "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?

   This reminds me of the old chestnut: "I have nothing against homosexuals,
   just so long as they don't flaunt it" -- which includes merely saying that
   you're gay/lesbian/bisexual, or showing a picture of your partner on your
   desk at work. Curious, the same behavior among heteros is not considered
   "flaunting". And likewise, people in dyadic relationships can bring their
   partners to church, mention them in candles of joy & concern, etc., ...
   but as soon as you mention *plural* partners, watch out!

   As to the point of reducing poly folk (not to mention queer and BDSM folk)
   to sex lives, this is most commonly indicated by labeling polyamory, BDSM
   etc. as a "lifestyle". Curious how they come to the conclusion that who I
   choose to love and find joy with, and how we do so, becomes an
   all-encompassing way of life. And their remedy, going back to the
   insistence that we keep this "a private thing," is that we
   compartmentalize it into something completely separate from the rest of
   our lives, and esp our spiritual lives.

   My response? Ask them if they'd be willing to do that themselves -- never
   refer to their spouse or partner, or anything that you do with them, even
   in the vaguest form. Remove any photos of your spouse/partner and family
   from your office. Take off your wedding ring before going into church.
   Don't you dare ask your minister for relationship advice; or, if you're
   the minister, don't even suggest that you have a relationship to someone
   who is looking for such advice. See how long you can live like that ...
   and then think of every "unconventional" person who finds the necessity to
   do that because so many others don't want to listen.

   "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."

   The language of danger is frequently trotted out by the Radical Right, not
   only regarding BGLT issues such as same-sex marriage, but even more so in
   their quest to impose abstinence-only "education" in public schools.
   Fausto, Schade and others seem to insist that *we* should prove that
   polyamory is not dangerous.

   I would argue/respond first by refusing to use the word "danger" --
   substitute the more correct term "risks." Yes, plural relationships carry
   a certain measure of risk. So do dyadic ones. Everything we do carries a
   measure of risk. If, however, you can be made aware of those risks, and of
   ways to minimize them so that the *benefits* can be enjoyed, then the
   burden of proof now falls back on the other side to establish that all
   plural relationships ought to be discouraged.

   Similary I notice that this camp constantly appeals to "tradition" --
   monogamy is a tradition which has worked well for centuries, tell us why
   we should change it. Apart from the frequent responses to this fallacy
   (not all traditions are good ones; traditions evolve and change over time)
   is the more substantive problem that it makes tradition an end in itelf,
   and reduces human beings to become just a means towards propagating that
   end. (And thanks be to Jesus, who pointed out that "the Sabbath was made
   for people, and not people for the Sabbath!)

   IMHO the best response is to radically rephrase the question: "What kind
   of society do we want?" Do we want a society where every person can find
   the best means to attain joy and fulfillment while contributing to their
   community in accordance with their gifts? Do we want greater honesty,
   caring, openness, mindfulness and understanding? Or do we want a society
   where all of this is sacrificed on the altar of traditionl and "social
   stability"?

   Hope this is helpful to you all ...

   Desmond Ravenstone

   ********************

   http://www.lulu.com/gentlemonster
   http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Want to change your life? Find the perfect job with Lycos Jobs.
   Career Advice. Job Resources & Recommendations.
   Post your resume & find a job match!