Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness.......edited

[High Sierra Buck]

California once again leading the pact with..........something to simply burn the britches off the RW'ers, this'll make ole John Ashcan see red no doubt.

Just Say NO to

JOHN

"Polyamory is never having to say you've broken up,'' said Sally Amsbury of Oakland, whose sex and love life openly includes her husband and two "other significant others," known in polyamory parlance as "OSOs."

Amsbury serves on the national board of directors of the Unitarian Universalist organization, which defines polyamory as "the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity.''

"Polyamory is not an alternative to monogamy. It's an alternative to cheating"

More ........... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/20/BAGIG67LNQ1.DTL

[Bertha Venation]

1. holy shit!

Everyone knows that such crap is immoral! Those freakin' Californians, always mucking everything up for everyone!

signed,

sarcastic, gay, former fundy native Californian

[High Sierra Buck]

3. Personally, if people wish to commit to a relationship,

It should not matter if its a man to man, man to woman, woman to woman, or man to woman to man to woman, or all of the above at once, as long as all involved are okay with it. Its not like anyone is hurt outside of the relationship, its their business what they do and who they love. What business is it of the government to determine who you can and cannot love?

[BlueEyedSon]

2. "Polyamory isn't an alternative to monogamy. It's an alt. to cheating"

LMFAO!!

at least they have a sene of humor!

[Brotherjohn]

4. This is one of the reasons my wife and I don't go to the local UU church.

I mean, if it's your personal preference, fine. Whatever lights your fire, rocks your boat...

But the one time we went to a Unitarian service, we just felt like we were in the "key Party" scene from "The Ice Storm" (partner-swapping based on whose keys you drew out of the bowl). It wasn't that anyone suggested anything. They just all seemed a bit too "friendly".

Regarding "polyamory", save me the "no one gets hurt" spiel. Unless you've just lucked out and found the two or three most emotionally secure (or emotionless) people in your area, jealously and hurt WILL come into play at some point. Everyone may not admit it, but it's only human.

Again, if you're willing to accept that, and think it's for you, fine. But I think most people who aspire to this "polyamorous" lifesytle have blinders on.

[High Sierra Buck]

5. I'm not sure how one relates friendly to partner swapping?

I must be missing something, but I in no way think that people being friendly automatically indicates they want to sleep with you ??

[Brotherjohn]

7. It was a vibe. "A bit too 'friendly'" means more than just "friendly".

Otherwise I would have just said "they were friendly".

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Nah...it's the MORMONS you gotta watch out for.

[Momgonepostal]

11. I hope that was supposed to be a joke nt

[SemperEadem]

10. "new meat"

perhaps it's like feeling the vibe that you're a steak and finding yourself in amongst a bunch of ravenous wolves.

[Athame]

19. Been an active UU for 20+ years

in several congregations and have not experienced this at all. There _were_ wild sexual experiments in the 60s and 70s, I know. The swapping parties at the So Cal UU camp were legendary. I don't know where you visited or how long ago, but I hope readers here don't think that it is prevalent now.

I agree that someone is bound to get hurt in those arrangements, so it would not be my choice, but there are lots of ways people can get hurt and lots of choices others make that I would consider foolish.

On their better days, UUs are for personal choice and liberal attitudes. Not saying we can't be closed minded and irritatingly PC. Each congregation really does have its own character. I know many in my own who would be horrified that UUs are championing polyamory, or even expressing open attitudes toward it. In fact, I think I'll take it to our local UU listserve and see what they all say. Will get back to you.

Ma

[displacedtexan]

6. In 20 years as a UU, I have never heard of this.

Nor have I read a single word about this in any local, district or national UU publication. I suspect that there may be 20 or 30 people world wide who constitute this group, and people assume that this is common in all UU congregations.

[High Sierra Buck]

8. I myself do not feel it is common at all

But I do feel it is something that some may be working on or twords, or already paracticing.I would in no way say that it is common practice. One poster in this thread already stated that he/she thought they were TOO friendly, but I think people being friendly may be just all it is.

Its like the difference of living in the bay area and living in a rural community in California. In the bay area, if you say good morning and hello to total strangers they look at you as if you are some kinda fricking nutcase, however, the opposite holds true in the rural areas of California, if you DO NOT say good morning or hello, they wonder what who put the stick up your ass.

[JDPriestly]

12. I second this.

I've been UU for 42 years and married to the same person for 40 and have two wonderful children. We got married in the UU church, so monogamy is still safe and well in the UU church. Maybe there is "polyamory," in UU, if such a thing exists, but I've never heard of it. High Sierra Buck must be joking.

[High Sierra Buck]

13. I didn't make this up

That is a real link, and I'm not saying the UU is only into this, I never said that, its in the article that some are paracticing it, but you know what? so do Catholics, methodists, athiests, etc etc etc....

I simply was posting information from a link in an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, nothing more.

[SemperEadem]

14. I know of someone who is UU

who is shitting all on her marriage with this type of behavior==except in her case, her husband isn't on board (he's not in the church)--in fact, he's so in the dark and in denial about her philandering. He's even caught her in an embrace, kissing her lover at the airport, and she actually had the nerve to tell him that what he saw wasn't what he thinks--and he bought it.

After reading this article, it totally puts her slutty behavior in disgusting context.

[Taverner]

15. Well technically that wouldn't be polyamory

As the whole idea involves openess and full discretion...

[haele]

16. I wouldn't blame UU...

I know plenty of women - and men - who embrace social "alternatives" - especially naturalistic, "new age", or similar philosophic groups - because they think it gives them carte blanche to act however they wish without taking responsibility in thier relationships.
Don't want to think of "Gawd" frowning on little pickadillos like lying to a spouse about spending time the hot body at work - after all, it's harmless, right?
:shrug:
Egoists love new age philosophy - but they tend to forget that along with a realistic "live as you will in accordance with your nature" attitude comes an equally realistic "and be prepared to pay the price".
That ain't judgement, that's a law of nature.

As for polyamory - if all parties involved are able to handle it - I see no problem. Many Asian, African and South American cultures have no problems with a couple of "Wife/Husband #'s 1,2 & 3" living under the same roof as a household and several adults handling the different roles. To survive, there's a lot of ego that needs to be swallowed the more adults that are in a close relationship.
Unfortnunatly, any student of anthropology understands that sort of lifestyle requires a particular cultural background to be able to get past the egoism and traditional household responsibility patterns that is prevalent in modern western society.
That's one of the reasons polyamory doesn't generally work out in a long term relationship in the US. Most people don't want to make sacrifices to secure the group relationship, they only want to make sacrifices to secure themselves.

Haele

[PatGund]

17. That's *NOT* Polyamory

That's flat out cheating, and that woman is being unfair and dishonest to both her partners. Which is a major no-no to people who *are* polyamorists. The whole point to being poly is open and honest communication with your partner and partners.

And polyamory doesn't always mean "polyfuckery" either. Being poly doesn't always mean you're sleeping with someone, it means you're in a loving relationship with that person. It doesn't matter if it includes sex or doesn't include sex.

Yes, there are UU Polys. And Pagan Polys and Christian Polys and Buddhist Polys and Jewish Polys, and Atheist Polys, etc., etc., etc.

[SemperEadem]

18. well, if she didn't use her church as her cover, I'd agree with you

[xchrom]

20. there are all kinds of ways to love

{and no i'm not talking about bestiality and pedophilia, so spare me}and this is just a variation.
and to those who object regarding a multiple partner scenario -- people get hurt in monogamous relationships as well.