I was glad to learn that at this summer's General Assembly, the Unitarian Universalist Association expanded its nondiscrimination rule. In addition to gender identity and expression, polyamory and other "family and relationship structures" are now criteria on which they (and member congregations) are not to discriminate.
The new rule reads: "The Association declares and affirms its special responsibility, and that of its member congregations and organizations, to promote the full participation of persons in all of its and their activities and in the full range of human endeavor without regard to [
race] racialized identity, ethnicity, gender expression, gender identity, sex, disability, affectional or sexual orientation, family and relationship structures, age, language, citizenship status, economic status, or national origin and without requiring adherence to any particular interpretation of religion or to any particular religious belief or creed."
The amendment passed overwhelmingly. Delegates raised cards in a quiet equivalent of a voice vote.
This should make polyamory more visible, in a positive light, especially among Unitarians -- which include atheists as well as theists.
Oh! my goodness! I never thought of polyamory as a viable option! I'm still in the box of religious dogma, I suppose. Well, as long as each individual agrees to the arrangement, why not!? It probably would make for a better life, with fewer demands, more freedom, less obligations, more opportunities. No wonder my former church community thought of UU as people of the devil!
I see polyamory as an "orientation" as much as a relationship-style choice. Some people, like me, find that it suits them, others that it doesn't. Some monogamous people are monogamous because they need and want monogamous relationships, not (just) because it's a social default we've been conditioned to expect.
Polyamory, where people of any gender are empowered to create intentional relationship structures, does give the lie to traditional, patriarchal religious dogmas that have girls and women passing from the authority of the father to the authority of the husband.
Anyway, part of being civilized is knowing the difference between "Not for me, thank you!" and "That's EVIL; nobody should do that!" (Nobody consigns you to hell for liking pineapple, spam, and M&M's on your pizza. I borrowed that from "To Slide or to Slice?" an article on sex educator Al Vernacchio's positive, inclusive, and delicious metaphor.)
And a cute quote (don't remember where I heard it): "Some people like poly because they get to have more sex. Some people like poly because they get to have less sex."
(If you have more than one partner, you're not depending on just one to be your "everything"!)
That makes a whole lot more sense than what I learned. That box is just getting too tight.