Brutally Honest:
The slippery slope is real but please, according to the Unitarian Universalists Association, people just need to shut the hell up about it:
The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go. Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the folks who want a faith community without too many rules. It is perhaps no surprise that the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest-growing denominations in the country,ballooning 15 percent over the past decade, when other established churches were shrinking. Politicallyprogressive to its core, it draws from the pool of people who might otherwise be “nones” – unaffiliated with any church at all.
But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.
UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.
But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the generalassembly.”
Later in the piece, there’s this:
Once you legitimize same-sex marriage, sociologist Peter Berger wrote on his blog in 2011, “you open the door to any number of other alternatives to marriage as a union of one man and one woman: polygamous (an interesting question for Muslims in Germany and dissident Mormons in Arizona), polyandrous, polygenerational – perhaps polyspecies?”
Polyamory groups, and polygamy, and even polyandry, have all existed for centuries. Polygamy itself is in the Bible. The concubines of Solomon might well be included. The Mormons practiced polygamy before joining the Union; many do so quietly yet. Muslims and Subsaharans practice it today. Any within these traditions would be better off pushing their case based on their own religious traditions and their interpretation of Scripture, long before they would reference gay marriage. The precedents are on their side already. There also seems to be no group of people calling for any of what you fear — why are they waiting for us? If these people wished this, why are they not clamoring now, with a stronger case on their merits, then waiting for the still unlikely event of gay marriage yet?
And still, there have been free love societies and orgiastic communes with Gods in many cultures, including our own. From messianic to more libertine, all these have existed. All of this predates gay anything — other than our existence too. How can you now say that allowing something new in America will create that which has existed forever all over the world well before the question of us came up?
Look I don’t care if you’re opposed to gay marriage, or gayness itself – -but don’t blame us for stuff we can’t be responsible for, or worse, call us the lynchpin of everything — which your logic here implies — that with gay marriage every thing goes kaflooey we’re the lynchpin to the grenade I guess. We just can’t be that important, we can’t. We’re sissies who want to pay a joint tax return, for heaven’s sake.
Brutally Honest
the thing is, from my point of view,
aren’t too many have turned their interest toward the WORLD, and their sexual habits
which are allowed openly since the xxxtimes of the CREATION,
and some brought it back in this NEW WORLD, and where so convincing
probably with children to introduce their sexuals deviations,
and like ADAM AND EVE, they grew as a different breed of sex orientation,
was it a MUTATION of mix genders in one human? some leaning more or less on one or the other,
I think there was same on the females because they became numerous and procreate at the same time,
but kept their orientation ,
they multiply no matter what, I think they where also hated and abused and killed, even massacre,
at some times in some generations times, but they where so gifted in the art form that they where seek by those needing to use their gifts, their gifts are reconnyze all over the WORLD,
it seem that it brought their survived till today, where they blend with this freedom seeking civilization,
they more than blend they participate full time, and contribute a lot to the wealth of this AMERICA,
but they seek legalization of their difference, is that the right thing to demand?
especially because like the NON GAIS ,they also have the what was call NAMBLA,
which I never heard that word before, it seem to be a BESTIAL sex exchanges that could by
connection ruin their appeal to make their unions legit,
can you afford to have those tendency become legit too ? not counting other we don’t know but exist
as you mention of them, that would ruin your mindset on one union of two same gender,
including the other sex inclinations other
as oppose to the definition of the real marriage so unique as we name only one of each opposite gender,
able to procreate the generation of the future,
I ask if you think it would make you feel more secure and take away your feeling of desperation
for being different, I doubt it
@Jim Hlavac:
Did a lightbulb go off in your head and you see where this whole SSM issue can lead and now you’re afraid that homosexuals are going to be blamed for it? Well, I don’t see any other group, including poly activists, shoving their agenda down the throats of other Americans, and suing to overturn a legitimate law voted on by a majority of the people of a state, just because they didn’t like the outcome. Yeah, this is on your head. All of it.
Well finally you admit that the SSM issue has nothing to do with any of the catch phrases/words you love to throw out like “fairness, equality, et al” and is nothing more than financial. Unfortunately, there seems to be no math majors in the gay movement or you would know that joint tax returns are going to wind up costing you money if you reach a certain income level. What sweet justice that would be.
@retire05: I dare say sir, I think you give us too much credit, power, example and authority – we are simply not this numerous or important. But, I do enjoy you, sir, I do. Comedy for instance: For the life of me I can’t imagine how gay men can set an example to anyone, as you yourself say, and then continue on and say we are the horror as well; We are both, you your self say. Oh, I don’t know, call me silly — but are we the example to be followed, or, are we the horror? But one or the other, please. I don’t care which — but I can’t argue the twain. thank you.
@Jim Hlavac:
Your rambling response makes no sense. Were you drunk at the time you wrote it, or just trying to be poetic and failing miserably?
Let us hope that this doesn’t lead to us into polyester.
Jim HLavlac
hi,
you bring good facts and comments here every time you visit,
you have good points to debate with,
thank you.