Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (moral, reject, homosexuality, America)

[EverChanging]

UUPA

This is a subject I have been pondering lately, the practice of having more than one romantic/sexual partners. I don't know that polyamory would ever work for me, but I can't think of anything unethical about it at all so long as there is mutual respect, trust, and love between all partners involved.

I was very surprised to find out about this group.

[EverChanging]

This is a statement by the UUA on polyamory: it seems to distance the UUA from supporting polyamory, but on the other hand, there has never been a resolution on this, and thus there is no official position:

UUA News & Events: Clarification on the UUA's Stance on Polyamory

[UltraViolet]

Oh. ok.

Didn't see this thread.

[EverChanging]

No replies from Unitarian Universalists yet. I'll go ahead and offer my perspective.

While I don't know that polyamory would ever work for me, I understand that humans have the capacity to love more than one person, and I can't ever think that is wrong. If a couple decide a polyamorous family structure works for them, who am I to say that is wrong? From what I have been reading, some families have had this structure for years. I see no reason that polyamorous families should not be just as welcome in Unitarian Universalist congregations as members and ministers (if qualified and the congregation desides to hire them) as anyone else.

Ideally, I would think it should be acceptable to marry multiple partners, though I'm not really sure how that would work. I could see how it could get very complicated. I will leave it to others to decide how that could be worked out. Contracts, perhaps?

In reading a blog in which Unitarian Universalists were discussing the matter, I was very shocked to see the reasoning motivating those who had a strongly negative emotional reaction. One argument was that polyamory rejects the "wisdom" of hundreds of years of Western history. Using that argument, one could argue against same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has only been legalized recently in the known history of the entire world. The argument went on that the difference is that gay people are born gay, but we are also born with the capacity to love others, and nature never programmed monogamy into us. Having more than one partner to which one relates intimately is just as natural as homosexuality, or heterosexuality, for that matter.

Another in the blog compared it to beastiality, yet again an argument used by homophobic people. It amazes me that anyone would ever think to compare loving relationships to beastiality.

Others described it as "socially outrageous" and an "anything goes" kind of lifestyle. In some places, a same-sex couple walking down the street can be considered to be engaging in socially outrageous behavior just because they are holding hands. Polyamory isn't an "anything goes" kind of family structure so long as the family maintains consent, integrity, honesty, love, and mutual respect.

I think some of the extreme reactions to this are coming from irrationality and deeply ingrained cultural ideas in a way similar to how some people react to homosexuality. In thinking about this, I can't see anything immoral about polyamory in and of itself. Problems polyamorous families can and do have also occur among monogamous couples. I'm sure it could get even more complicated because of the number of partners involved, and that's a good argument that polyamory is not for everyone, but it doesn't indicate that polyamory is in and of itself immoral.

Thoughts, anyone?

[J Bryson]

I think that it shows that we shouldn't get too self-congratulatory towards ourselves as a community, since it's obvious that we can fall into the same old tired mindsets and arguments that we complain about when we see them in Dominionist and Reconstructionalist Christians.

[EverChanging]

It is some of the arguments I came across that disappointed me more than the actual opinion on polyamory, though I still can't see any reason it should be considered immoral in and of itself. On the other hand, those were just a couple of bloggers. It is exciting to me that the church is advanced enough to even consider thinking about this issue, though, and apparently some congregations are very accepting and even have polyamorous ministers. I don't know any other church discussing it. The Church of All Worlds is the only American denomination that officially endorses polyamory. It is a neo-pagan church.

[Storm]

I'm not sure what I think on this, which is why I took so long to respond. Just wanted you to know I read it.

[EverChanging]

That's cool. I felt the same when first thinking about this idea a long time ago, but I think that is just cultural indoctrination. Other cultures have never been monogamous, as far as I know, though polyamory is different from polygamy in that both men and women are equal and both are able to have multiple partners, depending on what all involved have agreed to.

[Storm]

Well, it's not that I disapprove so much as I think, at this point, they're tilting at windmills. OTOH, so was every equality movement, in the beginning.

[EverChanging]

What do you mean by tilting at windmills?