|Sex, Kids, and Religon||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Catherine Kehl (tyliku.washington.edu)|
|Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 18:02 CST|
On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Rebecca Dawn Kaplan wrote: > Although UU claims to be UNiversal, it really only is > Universal with regard to many forms of christianity. If someone > were practicing traditional Jewish religious practices, their > practices woudl not be encompassed in UU, which, first of > all, alsmot allways hold their "nondenominational services" > on sundays. Additionally, many forms of pagan/wiccan practice > are not encompassed by most UU groups. Just to be the Devil's Advocate or whatever, there is CUUPs (covenant of U U Pagans....) out there.... (I'm not a member, or anything) Was it you, Rebecca, who posted about other conflicts in a similar vein (I think came don't to sex, kids and money)? I've really wondered about these myself, though a lot of my questions are really directed toward how well people have discussed these issues before move-in, and what things come up later. There is this general thing, I've noticed in other groups, where the uncomfortable topics (the ones sometimes not talked about) are the ones that people have the most issues over and are therefore most likely to cause problems. By the way, thank you, Rob, for posting about the evolution of what was and wasn't an issue in your group... I have to admit that at previous points I've taken you "x isn't an issue" to be a prescriptive statement, rather at odds with my experience, and suddenly it clicks -- oh, in your group it never has been.... (Little slow over here...) Dave G. Adams wrote: > Social forces don't stop me from certain practices that cost a certain > surgeon general her job. Nor should they stop you from polyrelationships, > if that's what works in your life and your partners' lives. But I don't > talk about masturbation here (oops, I guess I just did), so please explain > to me why it is appropriate too focus on polyamory here. Well, I assume you don't mastrubate in public. Neither do I. Nor do I have sex with any or all of my lovers in public. However, let's face it, everyone in a close knit community pretty much always knows who's involved with whom. So right there it becomes a community issue. It's not the sex, it's the romantic relationship part. In an earlier discussion of this very issue, someone mentioned that a theoretical parent trying to raise their offspring in accordance with their own personal values (let's say monogamy, which is a pretty common value) might find having a member of the community involved in a poly relationship undermining their attempts to educate their children. This parent might want to encourage their offspring not to associate with this person, for instance. Can you see how this could become a community issue? Hell, if someone in my community started telling their kids not to hang out with me, my feelings would be hurt. I've spent most of the last three years teaching, by the way. Hanging out with kids is something that I'm used to doing, and like. And yeah, while I'm resigned to the fact that a lot of people don't find me an acceptable role-model, I'd hate to get that kind of reaction inside of my own community. At some point in the process of forming a community these issues have to be discussed. And before move-in date is certainly preferable. It's not only a question of polyamorous relationships (the specifics of which don't really strike me as appropriate to the list, though I would suggest alt.polyamory) but how a community deals with conflicting values on such issues as, say, sex and child-rearing. And I'm kind of wondering in the end if groups can deal with values that diverge beyond a certain point. I can't imagine a community being queer friendly where the kids were told not to hang out with those folks and not to grow up like that. -- I'd move out, myself. Which brings me around again to the subject of religon. In most of the communities I hang out in, there isn't a ton of conflict over religon. There seems to be a general policy of mutual acceptance, even to the point of mutual celebration -- the last several passover thingies I attended certainly had a Jewish minority, but everyone had a hell of a good time. Does it come to a question of what you're willing to be exposed to and what you're willing to have your children exposed to? I've celebrated Christmas, though I'm not Christian. Same with holidays of at least half a dozen other religons. If I don't want to do something, I don't. This could be included in a general list of "how to be me". I realise it doesn't work for everyone. Someone commented on many co-housing groups being New-Agey. I think a better word might really be ecumenical. (though the New Age bit tends to to be ecumenical to the point of threatening to swallow everything with no apparent indigestion! The great amorphous amoeba!) The counter example given was a Christian who was not comfortable participating in ceremonies from other faiths. Now, I know this isn't some weird thing peculiar to Christians, as I know Christians who re more ecumenical than I, and Wiccans who would rather vote republican than enter a Christian church. I do think ecumenism (is this the right form here?) is a value that needs to be discussed in communities, preferably before move-in date. I see three general catagories of agreements that can be reached (though infinate shades between them). 1) Religous mono-culture. Everyone has similar beliefs. 2) Religon only a private concern. Public displays are discouraged. 3) Some kind of ecumenical bit. I don't think any of these solutions are better than any other in general, it just depends on what works for the situation. Catherine
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.