Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: ROMANTICIZING COHOUSING

[Joshua (jrcooper]

Maggi Rohde wrote:

>
>   I've been reading this thread with increasing feelings of dismay.  I've
> never seen a group so harshly discriminated against on this list -- and
> I've been here for a couple years.  I kept restraining myself from
> responding to the many negative comments I've seen here, but I feel like I
> need to say something.

..

>
>   It's not my "lifestyle," it's my life.  It's part of my core being.
> The same is true for my sister and her two husbands, who have been
> together for eleven years, and for countless others in the closet.
> Including, apparently, many on this list.
>
>   Please have more respect.
>
>   -Maggi

I couldn't agree with you more, Maggi.  Throughout the mid-1990's I was very
active with the Human Rights Coalition in Oregon fighting against legislation
introduced by the so-called "Oregon Citizen's Alliance" (OCA) which proposed
out-right legalized discrimination against homosexuals.  It was only a
partially successful struggle on our part.  Although the law was narrowly
blocked on the state level, it passed in many local jurisdictions, to the
dismay and outrage of many people who have been driven back into the closet
and have subsequently suffered increasing discrimination and victimization by
hate crimes.

Since this time, I have been increasingly sensitized to similar rhetoric.  To
be frank, the propaganda that was put out by this OCA toward homosexuals was
not entirely different in tone from many of the views that are being expressed
here around this issue of polyfolks and polyamoury:

"They don't make good neighbors."
"It is destructive to families and communities."
"It is destructive for relationships."
"Let them do it somewhere out of sight -- and not in MY community."
"It's only a lifestyle CHOICE, and a bad one at that."

To me, these constitute the same basic Family Values message in a different
wrapper.  Now, in retrospect, I think that one of our major mistakes in Oregon
was in getting stuck in playing an Us-vs.Them dynamic with the OCA, rather
than trying to come to common terms.  I think that this primarily served to
increase anger and obstinance on both sides.  Yet, I continually fail to see
how there can be compromise in accepting any form of verbal or legal
discrimination.  This is my place of being stuck, and I would honor any
insight that anyone can shed on the subject for me.

One interesting item of note:  In western society, the person who wins an
debate is the person who can demonstrate that her/his opponent's "side" is
wrong and her/his own "side" is right.  In eastern society (I've heard it
said), the goal in a debate is more to demonstrate that both individuals are
arguing for the same thing, that on some level the whole thing boils down to
miscommunication and different sets of semantics.  Sadly, I'm much better at
western debate than at eastern.  But I would like to propose a few ideas...

We all are concerned about the safety of our children.
We all are concerned about the security of our lives and our significant
relationships.
We all know that keeping a community going and vital is challenging at best,
and we are all too well aware of the many failed communities.
We all (I am stepping out on a limb here) feel a little cynical about the
idealism of the '60s and "where has it got us."
Those of us who have grown up in good old puritanical USA (which is likely the
majority) have some sort of issues around sexuality, whether we are aware of
it or not.

Thanks for listening to my thoughts,

Joshua