So we're doing it.

[rivka]

At 5:00 tomorrow afternoon, curiousangel and I are meeting with Reverend Manwell to talk about the poly thing.

Tonight, we talked over what exactly we want to say to him. I'm proud of how we worked it through together, although I'm still really nervous. Here are the talking points we developed. Of course, the course of the conversation will largely be determined by his reactions, but here's what we thought it was essential to get across:

We had some concerns raised by the title of next week's sermon.
"Fidelity" is something we believe very strongly in - in terms of
being faithful to the promises you make in a relationship. But we
think that our culture equates "fidelity" and "monogamy" - there's an
assumption that only monogamous relationships are faithful, or
ethical. We disagree. We are faithful to the vows we made to each
other, but our vows specifically and intentially did not include a
promise of monogamy.

We know that a fundamental UU [Unitarian-Universalist] principle is
that there are multiple valid paths in life. But at the same time,
we've seen how there can be individual, or cultural, blind spots -
areas in which people don't think variation is acceptable, or perhaps
haven't fully examined alternatives to the norm. From what we
understand, the question of monogamy vs. polyamory is one of those
areas for the UU church.

We aren't arguing in favor of an ethics-free sexuality - we think that
an ethic of care, honesty, communication, and mutual respect is
critical in polyamorous as well as monogamous relationships. We
recognize that probably most people's experiences with nonmonogamy
have not been in ethical situations - for example, people have been
cheated on, or pressured into "swinging" or "free love" when they
didn't want to be. That's not what we believe in - we believe in
consensual and honest relationships, always.

What do we want?
- we want to continue to feel comfortable and welcome as members of
this church.
- we hope that your sermon on fidelity and adultery will focus on the
wrongs done by dishonesty and betrayal of trust, and not on
nonmonogamy as an inherent breach of faith, or monogamy as the only
valid relationship model.
- we don't expect you to become a polyamory booster, but we hope the
church will move towards acceptance of variation along this spectrum.

We'll be bringing, as visual aids, a copy of our wedding vows and some excerpts from the alt.poly FAQ. In the meantime, I've posted this here and to alt.polyamory, in hopes that people will have some useful comments.

I'm so nervous.

Comments

[aiglet.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me like you've got a reasonable set of concerns and requests, and if your (umm... I'll go with what I know) pastor values you as a member of your church (which he should, you're a lovely person and curiousangel seems to be so as well), he'll at the very least be willing to be open and understanding about *why* you're concerned.

It looks like you've really thought this out, and you're not going in there as some kind of rampaging "Poly Crusaders," but rather as a concerned couple that wants to make sure that your lifestyle choices are respected.

(I don't know how much any of this helps, but I figured a vote of confidence wouldn't hurt. ;P)

[geekchick]

I don't think I have any particularly useful comments to contribute, but I'll be thinking good thoughts for y'all tomorrow. I hope everything goes well.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

Wow. I am just so full of admiration for both of you right now.

I'll be thinking about you tomorrow.

-J

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Wow. I am just so full of admiration for both of you right now.

Heh. Wait to admire us until we've actually gone through with it, and survived. But thanks.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

Prayers and good thoughts on the way. I think you'll do wonderfully!

[ororo.livejournal.com]

You've got an incredibly thorough game plan here. It's gentle, yet it's firm. No Crusader Rabbit stuff here. Best wishes for a healthy conversation all around. I think you'll do great.

Also--I see you trusting and respecting your pastor enough to be able to even broach the subject says a lot of Good Things about all of you.

Luck and hugs and smooches.

[elisem.livejournal.com]

I pass along to you the good wishes that I've gotten myself from people who work with anti-discrimination stuff within the UU congregations and hierarchy. Polyfolks are and must be welcome within UU congregations if the tradition of respecting a free and responsible search for meaning is to be truly applied. That's my opinion on it, anyhow.

And besides, confusing polyamory with unethical non-monogamy is like confusing monogamy with forced marriage. Most UUs are better logicians than that, fortunately.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

My useful comment: I know that you're an intelligent, well-spoken, reasonable, thoughtful person, and this talk-thingy (agenda?) that you've written up is all of those things. I believe that you'll do fine. I'll also send you my very best wishes and hopes. :)

[elisem.livejournal.com]

You also might want to check out

http://www.uua.org//news/siecus/declaration0100.html

which is the Religious Declaration on Sexuality Morality, Justice, and Healing, Presented to the public on January 18, 2000, New York City; signed by over 850 religious leaders, including the Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens, President, Unitarian Universalist Association.

One bit in particular caught my eye:

Our culture needs a sexuality ethic focused on personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts.

All persons have the right and the responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure. Grounded in respect for the body and for the vulnerability that intimacy brings, this ethic fosters physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.

I think yours fits in there pretty well. I hope your minister also understands this, or is at least willing to ponder it.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

I applaud you for being willing to raise this, and wish you a good outcome.

[kightp.livejournal.com]

You two rock.

You know, if your pastor is the kind of person you hope he is, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this wound up being incorporated into the sermon.

Bless you both.

Which?

[quoin.livejournal.com]

Which UU Church? just curious..... great religon (faith.... philosophy....group of crazy kids... whatever).

[jenett]

I think all that sounds very good (having read the clarifications on alt.poly, too.) And I think what you're trying to express is pretty reasonable, given what I know about UU. And I think you've hit all the major points.

Please do let us know what happens - I know I'm very interested.

Re: Which?

[rivka.livejournal.com]

First Unitarian Church of Baltimore, Maryland.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

I really like your comment elsewhere - that poly isn't "anything goes" any more than Unitarian-Universalism is. I think that's an excellent comparison, and likely to make things click properly into place.

Polyfolks are and must be welcome within UU congregations if the tradition of respecting a free and responsible search for meaning is to be truly applied. That's my opinion on it, anyhow.

As usual, your opinion is right on. Thanks.

Really, I'm sure things are going to go fine. But I'm still so nervous.

[dandelion-diva.livejournal.com]

I admire the courage it took to decide to say something, and in making the appointment. The courage of actually doing it floors me.

I'll be thinking GoodThoughts toward you today, at the appointed time.

Good luck, hon.:)

Gesi

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

I think you have the tone right... you're not apologizing for who you are or what you do... you're providing information. You're coming across, to me, like a person of good-goddess-too-few-years ago explaining that homosexuality isn't some evil perversion. (That's a good thing... it means you're coming across as someone stating a simple truth that isn't yet widely accepted because it's not been thought about enough yet)

The only thing to be cautious about, I'd think, is how you project yourself.

First, if this person is good and wise, you'll be accepted without any problems. If this person is merely good, you want to transmit the right cues.

The idea you want to portray is "we're here to help keep you from making a mistake that you'd regret, if you understood it." You must think this is a good church, or you wouldn't be there. Therefore, you know that if these people understood you, Misha, and polyamory in fullness, they'd be okay with it... the question is, will they understand it?

I doubt he'll be shocked... but if he is, he might take his cue from you, and the fact that you'll seem interested in educating him, and completely unapologetic, will help him avoid thinking there must be something wrong with this somewhere.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I think Jennie's right to admire you now, before you've gone through with it.

Just deciding that you needed to speak up, and planning carefully, is worthy of admiration. You and Misha might not feel ready to be admired yet, because you feel that the hard part is yet to come, but admiring what you've done so far doesn't preclude the rest of us being able to admire what's coming!

(Which is a longwinded attempt to say, "Hey, I think what you're doing is admirable, and whatever strength you can draw from having my support in addition to everyone else's, you're welcome to.")

[k-crow.livejournal.com]

I think the talking points you've developed are excellent, and should do a great job of getting across to your reverend who you are and why his sermon title brought up these concerns. The various visial aids and excerpts also sounds like a great idea. I can understand being nervous, but i think you'll do great.

I really hope this works out well for you, and I'll be thinking GoodThoughts in your direction. Take care.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

What everyone else said. Mind if I keep this in mind for our next local Poly Discussion Circle? I think it would be an interesting topic.