Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet

Washington Post ^ | 3/22/2013 | Lisa Miller

[markomalley]

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. Politically progressive 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 general assembly.”

[Intolerant in NJ]

The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go...people who worship themselves.....

[driftless2]

At the bottom of the whole argument is the notion propagated by the proponents of homosexual "marriage" that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. By their standards, both are normal and equal. The fact that only about two or three percent of humans are homosexual does not cause the proponents to wonder one bit.

The main objective or function of sex is to reproduce. Certain bodily orifices were not designed for entry by sexual organs as the main avenue of sex. If homosexuality were the same as heterosexuality, then homosexuals would be able to reproduce with each other.

And lastly, if further scientific studies prove that homosexuality is a result of overproduction of hormones in the womb (and can be treated), then how can something that would be the result of a bodily malfunction be considered normal or equal?

[SuziQ]

Unitarians: Atheists who haven’t kicked the Church habit. ;o)

[MeganC]

Zero’s father was a polygamist and Zero is the first child from a polygamist family to become President.

[MeganC]

“Marriage between a man and a chicken will be championed”

Sadly, in many cases I know my own chickens would be better wives for some men than their wives are. The upside of chickens is at least once the sun goes down you can count on them to sit down and shut up!