Children are “unwilling participants” when parents divorce or parents remarry.

You bet they are, and some of them carry emotional scars for life because of it. It’s one of the main reasons why divorce used to carry such a stigma. It’s why couples counseling is such a good idea before marriage, and why many ministers of many denominations insist on it before agreeing to perform a marriage. What are you saying, that because some children get emotionally hurt even in conventional marriages, that it’s okay to overlook the increased potential for such hurt in unconventional, less committed arrangements?

Look, I’m not saying that the UUA should categorically oppose polyamory. I think it should remain silent on the subject, and it does. It should give ministry and support to its members who choose to live in such arrangements, but I also think it should advocate for mutually committed adult sexual relationships rather than transient ones wherever practical, whether such arrangements are conventional or unconventional, and especially where there is the potential to inflict emotional harm on chidren who are not in a position to understand what is going on or to protect themselves.

Moreover, the UUA should not allow itself to be identified with groups that expressly advocate casual, uncommitted sexuality. I do regret that the UUA allows a poyamory advocacy group to operate under the UU name for that reason. I think the issue of polyamory, whether committed or uncommitted, has no bearing on our mission as a religious institution, and that allowing them to publicly identify themselves with UUism erodes the UUA’s ability to be taken seriously by mainstream society on other matters of significantly more compelling moral and social gravity.

then fausto wrote:
My understanding is that one of the characteristics of the typical polyamorous arrangement is a certain need for fluidity that discourages emotional stability among even the willing participants — to say nothing of the unwilling participants, such as dependent children.Children are “unwilling participants” when parents divorce or parents remarry. Children are “unwilling participants” when a parent “comes out” as bi, gay, lesbian, or transgender. Heck … my kids are often “unwilling participants” when they go to school or church.

How would we approach a child living with polyamorous adults as a family ministry issue?

At the Our Whole Lives Grades K-1 and 4-6 Training of Traners last summer, we were invited to provide some sample questions that we might hear from parents and sample questions we might hear from children in our programs. These sample questions were for us to practice answering tough sexuality questions.

One of the sample questions from another participant was “What are you going to tell my child about his/her polyamorous family?”

We had some discussion about what the UUA has said “officially” about polyamory (which is very little … see the UUA link below).

But the best answer for this question came from one of our OWL K-1/4-6 master trainers … any family where a child is loved and cared for is a good family for that child.

That seemed like a reasonable answer that respected the child, the adults in the child’s life, and acknowledged that the child’s parents are the primary sexuality educators in the child’s life.

This answer is also neutral towards the subject of polyamory … reflecting that we have no official UUA position on this topic.

The “UUA Official Non-Position” on polyamory can be found here.

I may be wrong, but as I understand it, the difference between polyamory and marriage, whether of the monogamous or polygamous (or even far rarer polyandrous) variety, is that essential ingredient mentioned by PeaceBang: “covenant”. My understanding is that one of the characteristics of the typical polyamorous arrangement is a certain need for fluidity that discourages emotional stability among even the willing participants — to say nothing of the unwilling participants, such as dependent children.

I must confess, I don’t get the UUA’s willingness to have its name so closely associated with “polyamory” in certain circles. Despite any other latitude we might allow or even encourage, given our history, polity, and theological heritage, I would have expected our threshhold moral position on the question of meaningful adult relationships to be, “It ain’t worth a thing, if it ain’t got that… covenant.”

I would totally call Christina Aguilera and tell her she rocks, especially acapella. (I am so serious. She did an amazing “You really got a hold on me” when she was the musical guest on SNL one time.)

CC
who had something of substance to say, but simply can’t recall what it was. Ah Paris Hilton threads.

Hank