coming out to my mother
Jill Lundquist
A couple of weekends ago, my sister and her husband and their children
were in Denver staying with my mother, so I took a trip down to see them.
I live in Boulder, Colorado, USA, which is less than an hour's drive
from Denver, but is culturally in some ways far more distant than
the physical distance would indicte. When people from these parts
hear I'm from Boulder, they usually react either very positively
or very negatively.
Anyway, at one point everyone left but my mother and me, and we had a
good conversation. She and my long-distance partner and I had had
lunch together a few weeks before, and we talked about him a bit. I
described the changes that have been happening between us, the ones
that started in December or so with us deciding to be secondary
rather than primary partners and that are continuing with me finally
accepting deep down how differently we really want to live our lives
right now and the implications of that for our relationship to each
other. It's been a time of change for us, which, though easier than
the time when we were fighting, isn't easy yet, and I told my mother
about that.
At one point she asked me, "well, does this mean that you are seeing
other people?" and I took a deep breath and told her that my NYC
partner and I have never been monogamous and that I've had another
partner for some time. I had mentioned my local partner to her
before by name without going into detail, so I told her that it was
him, and described his primary relationship, including my admiration
for his primary partner. I mentioned that my partners had met each
other and liked each other, and said that everyone know what was
going on and was okay with it. I also said a bit about how it's been
hard for me lately that I don't at this time have anyone in the
pipeline to become a primary eventually, and that I didn't know
whether that was a passing worry or whether I really deeply want a
primary partner.
There were a lot of things I left out; I didn't use the word
"polyamory", didn't mention that I have no plans to be monogamous
again, didn't tell about my many polyamorous friends, and didn't say
anything about the shifting in my sexual orientation that has been
leading me to some internal turmoil lately. I figure that those
things will come up eventually if they turn out to be issues.
Having finished the basic exposition, I fell silent to hear what she
had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
"This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
Much later on, I said, "I'm really glad you didn't freak out over
the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
And she's been true to her word.
So I've planted some kind of seed, and will wait patiently to see what
comes up.
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@cs.colorado.edu
"I mean, I LIKE flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama, but I like TOUGH-MINDED
flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama." -MWB
Bill Sappington
Just a brief observation....
I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
_without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
what you want to say.
My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
I sort of see her reaction as being very tolerant because you have not
declared yourself to be somehow different and the implications of the
value judgements you may make upon another lifestyle, if you get my
meaning which I am having a bit of trouble articulating.
ok not so brief....
I mean its sort of like being gay, not in the closet, but not flaming
either. People tend not to object to what they don't notice or do
notice, but not a great deal, ie: non-threatening in my expirience.
I mean I have my own ideas and limits about my own sexuality, but I
don't flaunt them, I try to be low impact on those I am around and be
respectfull of their beliefs and limitation.
'til the next time....
Jim Roberts
Jill Lundquist wrote:
>
[...]
> Having finished the basic exposition, I fell silent to hear what she
> had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
> "This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
> changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
>
Your mom sounds cool. Very likely she knows more than she's telling. When
my family found out that my wife and I had a wife, it went like wildfire
through the family. My mother still calls to ask if I'm OK, and my kids
refuse to talk about it, though they like to talk to me. My two brothers
just think I'm a degenerate. Moi?
> Much later on, I said, "I'm really glad you didn't freak out over
> the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
> her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
> And she's been true to her word.
>
> So I've planted some kind of seed, and will wait patiently to see what
> comes up.
>
You are lucky. She's a great lady. Maybe you helped her deal with a few
things, too. Took away the tabu.
jimbat
Artnmuzic
>Bill Sappington wrote:
>
>I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
>_without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
>what you want to say.
>
>My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
>will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
>label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
I have found this to be very much the case...when I first 'came out of the
closet' about being poly, I was quite proud of the fact that I had a name to
apply to something I had previously thought was just my own personal (and to be
ashamed of, but that's another story) wierdness. So I bandied it about,
telling friends and family I was poly...and got a LOT of negative feedback, and
not a little outrage, as well as some good old fashioned ostracism. It was
frustrating because before I came out as poly, and folks thought I just "had a
little growing up to do" or I was "just sowing some wild oats", I was treated
more decently. Once I labeled myself, many of the people I knew turned their
backs on me...ouch!
>I mean I have my own ideas and limits about my own sexuality, but I
>don't flaunt them, I try to be low impact on those I am around and be
>respectfull of their beliefs and limitation.
I have found that being sensitive to the modes of thinking other people employ
works much better. However, I have yet to find a comfortable way to do this
with my family...with acquaintances one can omit, but explaining to your family
why you have two or more mates is another thing entirely. I have yet to find a
comfortable solution for this.
Ok, long enough post!
Cheers,
Tara
>
>
bearpaw
ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Jill Lundquist) writes:
> ...
>Having finished the basic exposition, I fell silent to hear what she
>had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
>"This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
>changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
Aaaaaaarrrrrggh. Maybe she didn't mean it badly (was she joking?),
but I find this sort of thing really condescending. Like, right,
you make major life decisions based on what happens to be locally
stylish. I thought it was bad enough when my mom (is this some sort
of parent thing?) made a similar comment about how I wear my hair.
("Um, no, Mom, this is *not* how guys in Boston wear their hair.
It's how *I* wear my hair in Boston and anywhere else I happen to
be.") I mean, really, I was in my thirties by that point and it's
not like I *ever* did much of the jump-off-the-bridge-'cause-everyone-
else-is-doing-it, even when I was a teenager.
My brothers are much more conformist than I am, but because they
conform to what my parents consider normal (more-or-less), *I* must
be the one who's being led along by those weird Boston people.
Sheesh.
>Much later on, I said, "I'm really glad you didn't freak out over
>the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
>her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
>And she's been true to her word.
> ...
Cool. Way ta go.
Bearpaw
--
bea...@world.std.com ~~ http://world.std.com/~bearpaw/
"The beauty of reductionism is that it gives you
something to do next." - Steve Jones
bearpaw
Bill Sappington <bi...@flyingguy.com> writes:
>
>Just a brief observation....
>
>I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
>_without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
>what you want to say.
>
>My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
>will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
>label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
People are most open to new ideas when they aren't presented with any?
>I mean its sort of like being gay, not in the closet, but not flaming
>either. People tend not to object to what they don't notice or do
>notice, but not a great deal, ie: non-threatening in my expirience.
>
>I mean I have my own ideas and limits about my own sexuality, but I
>don't flaunt them, I try to be low impact on those I am around and be
>respectfull of their beliefs and limitation.
In other words, if you had a same-gender partner, you wouldn't have a
photo of 'em on your desk at work? (That's "flaunting sexuality" in
*way* too many places where a photo of a different-gender partner
would be taken as a matter of course, and even as an invitation to
friendly discussion.)
Bearpaw,
*happily* "different and apart from the whole" and roughly as
in-your-face to the world as the world is to me ... minus the
violence, generally
Assimilation is useless. Prepare to resist.
bearpaw
artn...@aol.com (Artnmuzic) writes:
> ...
>I have found this to be very much the case...when I first 'came out of the
>closet' about being poly, I was quite proud of the fact that I had a name to
>apply to something I had previously thought was just my own personal (and to be
>ashamed of, but that's another story) wierdness. So I bandied it about,
>telling friends and family I was poly...and got a LOT of negative feedback, and
>not a little outrage, as well as some good old fashioned ostracism. It was
>frustrating because before I came out as poly, and folks thought I just "had a
>little growing up to do" or I was "just sowing some wild oats", I was treated
>more decently. Once I labeled myself, many of the people I knew turned their
>backs on me...ouch!
So you preferred it when they didn't understand you, as long as they
accepted who they *thought* you were?
(Not knocking it, exactly -- that sorta fits the relationship I have
with my parents. But it does have a very limiting effect on a
relationship, In My Experience, so I don't do that with friends.)
Bearpaw
"Anyone who thinks that the War on Drugs is not actually the
War on the Underclass hasn't been paying close enough attention."
- John Perry Barlow
Bill Sappington
bearpaw wrote:
>
> Bill Sappington <bi...@flyingguy.com> writes:
> >
> >Just a brief observation....
> >
> >I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
> >_without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
> >what you want to say.
> >
> >My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
> >will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
> >label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
> > ...
>
> People are most open to new ideas when they aren't presented with any?
Uhmm well, people tend to be observent and see what you are doing even
when you think they aren't seeing a thing. I think that if given the
opportunity they will discover what it is you are doing without having
to have it explained to them. Also I think that this is a benefit
because then you aren't faced with a situation that upon being informed,
most folks feel the need to say somthing ( I mean feel compelled ) and
if its something they don;t understand or even have ever heard of before
it can be a bit if'y..
> >I mean its sort of like being gay, not in the closet, but not flaming
> >either. People tend not to object to what they don't notice or do
> >notice, but not a great deal, ie: non-threatening in my expirience.
> >
> >I mean I have my own ideas and limits about my own sexuality, but I
> >don't flaunt them, I try to be low impact on those I am around and be
> >respectfull of their beliefs and limitation.
>
> In other words, if you had a same-gender partner, you wouldn't have a
> photo of 'em on your desk at work? (That's "flaunting sexuality" in
> *way* too many places where a photo of a different-gender partner
> would be taken as a matter of course, and even as an invitation to
> friendly discussion.)
Uhm not at all. I mean that I would feel just fine placing a photo of a
same gender partner on my desk and leave it at that. Is it required
that I place this photograph in a hugely prominent place, where it's a
trophy of some kind, or can I place it somewhere where I can look at it
and if someone really takes an interest they can see it as well, then if
they ask me I can simply provide the facts and tell them thats my
partner and leave it at that.
It's not hiding, it's not being in the closet, it's simply being
respectfull of those around you, since, and lets face facts, those of us
who choose to live an alternative lifestyle are in point of fact, the
minority and further more, we represent a destruction of the main stream
as they see it. I prefer a stealth mode approach rather then a frontal
assult, because in the end, the army with the most troops wins unless
you have the element of surpirse, and we are a tiny tiny army.
> Bearpaw,
> *happily* "different and apart from the whole" and roughly as
> in-your-face to the world as the world is to me ... minus the
> violence, generally
>
astral alice
Bill Sappington wrote:
>
> Just a brief observation....
>
> I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
> _without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
> what you want to say.
>
> My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
> will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
> label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
Can I borrow that t-shirt too?
My ex had accepted me having "affairs" for over 2 years. He knew
full well what was going on and sometimes was even involved _before_
anything happened (ie. he had a right of veto). What finished my
relationship with him was my realisation that I was poly and desire
to claim the label.
In retrospect, it was a good thing - but it hurt a lot at the time,
especially as I was only just starting to find my feet wrt sexuality.
alice.
--
***********************************************************************
* astral alice: bi, poly, goth | http://www.darkwave.org.uk/~alice *
* astra on Cut | telnet://cut.meep.org:4040 *
* ------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* "Love belongs to Desire, and Desire is always cruel." - The Sandman *
***********************************************************************
Jim Roberts
bearpaw wrote:
> ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Jill Lundquist) writes:
> > ...
> >Having finished the basic exposition, I fell silent to hear what she
> >had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
> >"This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
> >changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
> > ...
>
> Aaaaaaarrrrrggh. Maybe she didn't mean it badly (was she joking?),
> but I find this sort of thing really condescending. Like, right,
> you make major life decisions based on what happens to be locally
> stylish. I thought it was bad enough when my mom (is this some sort
>
[...]
My take is quite different, and I rather liked what she said. The mom was
reaching out, and trying to assimilate the info. Give her credit. She's
had to see this life but she hasn't had a way to deal with it. She's
trying, as the rest of the post makes clear. And I think she has a good
grip on it.
[...]
jimbat
piranha
In article <6mm3vv$dst$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Jill Lundquist <ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>Having finished the basic exposition, I fell silent to hear what she
>had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
>"This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
>changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
*chortle*.
>Much later on, I said, "I'm really glad you didn't freak out over
>the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
>her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
>And she's been true to her word.
oh, how very nice. is this a big relief? she sounds
perfectly sensible, your mother.
*hug*.
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
piranha
hey, bill. haven't seen you around for a while.
In article <358E9E0E...@flyingguy.com>,
Bill Sappington <bi...@flyingguy.com> wrote:
>
>My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
>will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
>label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
i think that is true for a lot of people i've met, espe-
cially those who're firmly set in their own value systems.
i've been slowly introducing concepts of transgenderedness
and polyamory to my in-laws, and there are two things at
work: one is that they've known me for several years now
and they can _see_ that their offspring and i are rather
more happy than most other people they know. because they
love their offspring more than anything, that is very im-
portant. i've always struck them as weird (because i've
done things they'd never dream of), but they haven't put
me into one of those labelled categories of which they do
not think much, and as long as i stay away from any of
those labels, i am making slow inroads to having them un-
derstand _me_ rather than an image of me-as-label-X.
>I mean its sort of like being gay, not in the closet, but not flaming
>either. People tend not to object to what they don't notice or do
>notice, but not a great deal, ie: non-threatening in my expirience.
well, that sounds a bit off to me -- there are several
things in play for me: my sex life is private. it's not
anyone's business but my partners'. ergo i don't share
much about it. my sexual orientation i might share, as
an offering to understand me more fully. so, while i do
not care whether the neighbours know anything about it,
people like relatives of partners are somewhat more of an
issue -- i would like those people to understand me, so
we can have a smooth social relationship.
>I mean I have my own ideas and limits about my own sexuality, but I
>don't flaunt them, I try to be low impact on those I am around and be
>respectfull of their beliefs and limitation.
one can be respectful of other people's beliefs even if
one flaunts one's own. some people are activists, they
have got to "flaunt" because it's a matter of politics.
for some people the personal is political. with some
people one can't avoid it -- what is a gay man to do if
the parents would like to meet the new partner? how do
you _not_ be obvious about being gay in that situation?
but it's certainly an easier path if one doesn't stump
people's noses in one's own different choices.
i've recently come to wonder about others' ability to be
offended even when something isn't flaunted. my partner
and i are about to ditch the rat race and start our own
company, out in BC, and we'll live on a boat, travelling
up and down the coast, exploring, and basically having
ourselves a small adventure.
the reactions to these news fall basically into three
categories: 1) wow. that's amazing. i wish i could do
that. 2) have you really thought about this carefully?
about everything you'd be giving up? 3) good ghod, you
are nuts.
the people in category 3 seem actually rather defensive
while going into detail on all the horror stories they
have ever heard. they are, bar none, people who have
been bitching about everything in their lives for as
long as i've known them -- everything is too expensive,
too crowded, lawyers/doctors/automechanics are crooked.
they get very emotional, and i am starting to wonder
whether this isn't a reaction to feeling we are rejec-
ting their choices, their lifestyle, with which they've
not been happy, but haven't managed to change, but ra-
ther have made sacrifices to support -- and we're just
ditching it all wholesale.
interesting.
Jim Roberts
Lorrie wrote:
> Bill Sappington wrote in message <358E9E0E...@flyingguy.com>...
> >Just a brief observation....
> >
> >I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
> >_without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
> >what you want to say.
> >
> >My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
> >will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
> >label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
>
> I remember when I "came out" as a vegetarian my sister completely freaked.
> She asked why I always have to be so extreme, and why couldn't I just say
> I'm cutting out red meat or something. The rest of the family's feelings on
> this are similar, though they are less vocal about it. I shudder to think
> of their reaction to anything more significant than eating habits.
>
> It's funny, though. I'm very close to my family, and I don't think about
> the fact that there are whole facets of me that they don't know about. I
> think it's because I tend to compartmentalize my life. Work is work, family
> is family, and the rest is no one else's business.
>
> I think that my sister suspects that I have some "alternative" leanings, but
> *really* doesn't want to know. We were taking our mom to the airport and
> she (my mom) was asking what my plans were for the weekend. I told her that
> I had a friend coming from out of town, and a bunch of us were going hot
> tubbing. She asked "will you guys be naked?" My mouth dropped open, and my
> sister shrieked "MOM...you shouldn't ask that...If she wants to go nudie hot
> tubbing, that's her business, but I don't want to know!". I chuckled about
> that all weekend! Not a chance that they are ready for any extra-curricular
> information.
>
> Boy, this rambled on a bit, didn't it. Sorry!
>
> Lorrie
Nah. We need more of this kind of fresh air in the goup. It's odd that it's
the parents who are hip, and the kids who are as square as an old nail, isn't
it? My kids are as square as the 50s (actually much more square), but my
daughter says she likes to "party". I wonder what she can possibly be
thinking. She can dance the Devil down, though.
jimbat
Lorrie
Lorrie
piranha wrote in message <6mmhoj$n...@excalibur.gooroos.com>...
snip
> the people in category 3 seem actually rather defensive
> while going into detail on all the horror stories they
> have ever heard. they are, bar none, people who have
> been bitching about everything in their lives for as
> long as i've known them -- everything is too expensive,
> too crowded, lawyers/doctors/automechanics are crooked.
> they get very emotional, and i am starting to wonder
> whether this isn't a reaction to feeling we are rejec-
> ting their choices, their lifestyle, with which they've
> not been happy, but haven't managed to change, but ra-
> ther have made sacrifices to support -- and we're just
> ditching it all wholesale.
>
> interesting.
>
> -piranha
>
This is exactly the feeling I get when my family reacts to some of my more
'extreme' decisions. My sister all but admitted that when we have talked
about my being a vegetarian. She says that she knows that she isn't as
healthy as she'd like, and seeing me making active choices to improve my
health magnified that fact. She had almost the same reaction when I quit
smoking (though she eventually followed suit). I don't know how to battle
that even with small issues.
I have always been a little different from the rest of my family (if it
wasn't for the fact that I strongly resemble my father, I'd swear I was
adopted). It always made me feel like an outsider in my own family. It's
only been in the last few years that I've felt close to my family. I guess
that I'm afraid that anything of magnitude would shake the tenuous bonds
that I've been working so hard to forge. It feels good not being an
outsider, even if I'm not sharing my "whole" self with them.
Lorrie
fairest one
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:25:18 GMT, Lorrie <lor...@yahoo.com> warbled:
[snip]
: I think that my sister suspects that I have some "alternative" leanings, but
: *really* doesn't want to know. We were taking our mom to the airport and
: she (my mom) was asking what my plans were for the weekend. I told her that
: I had a friend coming from out of town, and a bunch of us were going hot
: tubbing. She asked "will you guys be naked?" My mouth dropped open, and my
: sister shrieked "MOM...you shouldn't ask that...If she wants to go nudie hot
: tubbing, that's her business, but I don't want to know!". I chuckled about
: that all weekend! Not a chance that they are ready for any extra-curricular
: information.
My mom is actively avoiding connecting the dots, and I think my dad knows,
but I'm not sure. My sister knows for sure, and I think she wishes she
didn't. Ah, well. It was her choice to go to the same college that I went
to, and she knew* that we'd end up in enormously overlapping social
circles for the year we were both there.... :)
betsy.
bearpaw
Bill Sappington <bi...@flyingguy.com> writes:
>
> Uhmm well, people tend to be observent and see what you are doing even
> when you think they aren't seeing a thing. I think that if given the
> opportunity they will discover what it is you are doing without having
> to have it explained to them.
[posted & emailed 'cause Bill's post was, though I didn't know it
at first ...]
This is less often true in a situation that people haven't run into
before. It's been my experience that without *some* explanation, people
will either (a) be mostly or totally oblivious and/or (b) mostly or
totally misunderstand the situation. (Often they very *confidently*
misunderstand it, too. They're convinced that they know what's going on
when they quite blatantly don't.)
> Uhm not at all. I mean that I would feel just fine placing a photo of a
> same gender partner on my desk and leave it at that. Is it required
> that I place this photograph in a hugely prominent place, where it's a
> trophy of some kind, or can I place it somewhere where I can look at it
> and if someone really takes an interest they can see it as well, then if
> they ask me I can simply provide the facts and tell them thats my
> partner and leave it at that.
Given that I've never seen (or even heard of) anybody doing the "prominent
place trophy" photo thing, I find your emphasis odd. The approach you
describe as preferable *is* seen as *very* In Your Face by lots of people.
Anything other than total secrecy is "flaunting it". Responding to
prejudiced comments -- even calmly and politely -- is "being disruptive".
And so on. While obviously there are different levels of being IYF, I
doubt there is any way of avoiding being (perceived as) in *somebody's*
face unless one is "normal" in every way (straight, monogamous, etc), or
fakes it so well that one might as well be. "In Your Face" is a matter
of perspective and degree, not kind.
> It's not hiding, it's not being in the closet, it's simply being
> respectfull of those around you, since, and lets face facts, those of us
> who choose to live an alternative lifestyle are in point of fact, the
> minority and further more, we represent a destruction of the main stream
> as they see it. I prefer a stealth mode approach rather then a frontal
> assult, because in the end, the army with the most troops wins unless
> you have the element of surpirse, and we are a tiny tiny army.
<shrug> Size isn't everything and "stealth" isn't the the only approach
that can work in a situation like this. Happily, not everybody uses all
one approach -- having multiple tactics is generally a good meta-tactic.
Bearpaw
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you;
but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - D. Marquis
bearpaw
"Lorrie" <lor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I remember when I "came out" as a vegetarian my sister completely freaked.
>She asked why I always have to be so extreme, and why couldn't I just say
>I'm cutting out red meat or something. The rest of the family's feelings on
>this are similar, though they are less vocal about it. I shudder to think
>of their reaction to anything more significant than eating habits.
Ssometimes when I tell somebody something unusual about my life --
whether or not I use any oh-so-horrible labels -- I tend to get one or
two of three reactions, roughly:
1) Horror/disgust that not only am I doing something so "obviously
wrong" but I'm being "blatant" about it, almost always involving
at least some pre-conceived misunderstandings about what I'm
talking about
2) Defensive explanations about their own life choices, often
involving some pre-conceived etc ...
3) *Non*-defensive explanations about their own life choices,
sometimes involving some etc ...
Number 3 is something that I'm starting to think of as the "Siskel&Ebert
syndrome". When I tell someone what I thought about a particular movie,
if they've seen it they're very likely going to tell me what *they*
thought about it. They're not (necessarily) saying that my reactions
are "wrong", nor being defensive about their own opinions ... they're
just giving their own point of view. I think it's a very common
conversational pattern.
So I've been trying to assume that people are doing the S&E thing
with me, unless I have fairly good evidence otherwise. (Which it
sounds like Lorrie had, above. I'm just sayin'.)
>It's funny, though. I'm very close to my family, and I don't think about
>the fact that there are whole facets of me that they don't know about. I
>think it's because I tend to compartmentalize my life. Work is work, family
>is family, and the rest is no one else's business.
> ...
Me too, sort of (*). But I hate it. That compartmentalization
feels very unnatural to me, and it pisses me off that it's much
less (arguably) necessary/expected for people who more-or-less fit
the mainstream.
(*) My usual compromise (or cop-out, if you wish) is that my family
and co-workers generally know how I feel about things like queer
rights (if it comes up, which it often does), even if they don't
always know how personal the issue is.
>Boy, this rambled on a bit, didn't it. Sorry!
Hadn't noticed. (Most of us ain't exactly known for our brevity.)
Lorrie
bearpaw wrote in message ...
snip
>Me too, sort of (*). But I hate it. That compartmentalization
>feels very unnatural to me, and it pisses me off that it's much
>less (arguably) necessary/expected for people who more-or-less fit
>the mainstream.
>
>(*) My usual compromise (or cop-out, if you wish) is that my family
>and co-workers generally know how I feel about things like queer
>rights (if it comes up, which it often does), even if they don't
>always know how personal the issue is.
That sounds exactly like me. Though I think I've made some inroads with my
family this way, at least in how they think about those issues. But it is
difficult sometimes to keep the personal side of it out of the conversation.
I don't do this a lot at work, because it's like beating my head against a
wall. The community I live in tends to be very conservative. It was a big
scandal when someone found out that there was actually a *gay* person
working there (insert shriek here). I, of course, tried to be the voice of
reason, and all I got was a confused stare, then a shrug. Oh well.
The hard part about the compartmentalizing is knowing that if Person A knew
what I'm like in "real life"*, he/she would completely change their view of
me.
*"real life" is the term that I use for everything that happens outside of
work. I'm known for being very serious at work, and somewhat of a bitch,
and that is not even close to who I am in "real life".
>
>>Boy, this rambled on a bit, didn't it. Sorry!
>
>Hadn't noticed. (Most of us ain't exactly known for our brevity.)
I'm glad. I'd hate for there to be an audible groan going up throughout
alt.poly everytime my name appeared!
Lorrie
Jill Lundquist
In article <Euywn...@world.std.com>, bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote:
>ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Jill Lundquist) writes:
>> ...
>>had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
>>"This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
>>changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
>
>Aaaaaaarrrrrggh. Maybe she didn't mean it badly (was she joking?),
>but I find this sort of thing really condescending.
It was an odd thing to say, she was not making a joke, and I'm not
completely certain what she meant by it. Even though, as she said,
she doesn't freak out about things like this, I think I'm safe in
saying she is less than thrilled. I think her comment was a defense,
a way of giving herself some space from what I said, sort of stepping
back without having to comment on it. And, you know, I can give her
that space. I didn't go into the conversation with a need to wring
her deepest feelings about it from her. She can have all the time
she needs to think about it and ask questions if she likes.
> Like, right,
>you make major life decisions based on what happens to be locally
>stylish.
Yeah, you're right on that it was a dismissive comment, but I think
you're taking it more literally than I did. My mother has known me
all my life :-), and she knows darned well that I make decisions by a
process that she doesn't really fathom. I'm not saying that my
mother is stupid, far from it, just that she and I are so different
that my choices are usually different from hers and my motives not
clear at first sight. We've grown to accept that, and I've started
to learn to open up more to my mother, to give her more information
about what's going on in my life, which has led to a lot more mutual
understanding. I think her comment on Boulder was a red herring.
Since "Boulder" is used as a synonym for "freakland" in (I think)
most of this state, I think she was saying that she thought what I am
doing is strange and that she doesn't understand it.
But that's fine. I went into this conversation with small goals. I
didn't go in thinking, "okay, I have to teach my mother what
polyamory is and that it's healthy and positive and that monogamy
isn't the only way and to draw my web for her and explain the
difference between primary and secondary relationships but be sure to
mention non-hierarchical polyamory and explain that primary/secondary
doesn't mean you love someone more and detail exactly what my hopes
are and give her a quick sketch of each of the people in the web and
get her to applaud me and tell me that I've obviously made the best
choices for all involved." Um, no. My goal was, simply, to stop
misrepresenting the place my local partner is growing into in my
life, and to do that in a way that was simple and honest without
demanding anything of her but her ears.
I don't feel that I'm protecting her from a deeper truth here; I feel
that more detail of my truth will emerge over the next several years,
and will grow and change as my relationship structure grows and
changes. It took me a long time to accept myself as having a strong
preference for polyamory, and I don't see why I should ask my mother
to do it more quickly than I did.
And there is a deeper context of truth-telling here. It took me
years to be able to tell my mother anything about my personal life,
and honestly, learning to tell her something about my hopes and
fears, to give her any real clues as to what I was thinking or
feeling, was more difficult than this. Over the last five or six
years I've mustered my courage and taken a number of tiny steps of
self-disclosure. And by treating my mother as a person who is strong
and capable and smart enough to know me (slowly), I've helped make it
easier for us to talk and to know each other. I don't tell her
everything, but I've in the past several months been finding myself
censoring what I said to her, and I don't want to roll back five or
six years of slow truth-telling beause I happen to have two lovers.
It's the usual issue of coming out -- not doing so slowly inhibits one's
self-disclosure to the point that one cannot accurately represent
oneself at all.
>>Much later on, I said, "I'm really glad you didn't freak out over
>>the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
>>her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
>>And she's been true to her word.
>> ...
>
>Cool. Way ta go.
Thanks!
Jill Lundquist
In article <6mmgll$n...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
piranha <pir...@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <6mm3vv$dst$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
>Jill Lundquist <ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>>the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
>>her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
>>And she's been true to her word.
>
> perfectly sensible, your mother.
She is very sensible, and a lot of how that expresses itself is in
not trying to live others' private lives for them. Very pragmatic.
It's a relief to have told her, but I wasn't really afraid of being
kicked out of the family or anything equally severe. I thought the
worst that would happen would be that she would express disgust or
tell me she thought I was being a fool. And if that had happened I
would have told her that I value her opinions (which is true) and
admitted that while I don't believe I'm being a fool, the possibility
is of course there.
And like I said to bearpaw, I'm pretty sure she doesn't approve, but
I need mutual honesty more than I need her approval.
> *hug*.
bikerbabe in black leather
>
>So you preferred it when they didn't understand you, as long as they
>accepted who they *thought* you were?
>
>(Not knocking it, exactly -- that sorta fits the relationship I have
>with my parents. But it does have a very limiting effect on a
>relationship, In My Experience, so I don't do that with friends.)
I generally don't tell people I'm poly when they first meet me. When
my relationships are topical, I tell them that I'm involved in very
serious relationships with several people and that all my
relationships are open and honest and fairly stable.
I don't mention the word polyamory initially because I don't want
people to focus on the word. I want them to develop the concept
first, then once I feel they've got some understanding, I introduce
the word. Sometimes that happens quickly, sometimes it take quite a
while. I never emphasize the word, I use it casually when I start
introducing the word to someone. After a while, they associate the
word with the way I do relationships.
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility#I'm a cheap date, but an expensive pet.
EMT-D TBTW10#Base, Lawrence Co. #Road rage is a nice term for "immature."
N9ISY (tech)#Somewhere out on the# Have sawmill, will travel.
EOL DoD#1147#Mirza Ranch.#http://php.indiana.edu/~amirza/home.html
brigid
bearpaw wrote:
> Hadn't noticed. (Most of us ain't exactly known for our brevity.)
>
brevity? what's that?
i couldn't find it in my "dictionary of college vocabulary". it's
funny, people keep mentioning things that aren't in that dictionary...
sleep, nutrition, coherency....
brigid
JennieD-O'C
Bill Sappington <bi...@flyingguy.com> wrote:
>I note that your honesty about your various relationships was explained
>_without_ declaring you were _ POLY _ or pic the descriptor that fits
>what you want to say.
>
>My observation of the facts you present leads me to believe that people
>will be far more open to new idea's if you don't give them an explicit
>label and declare yourself different and appart from the whole.
Interesting theory, and you may be right specifically about Jill's mother.
But my own mother was quite the opposite.
I originally introduced the subject by just describing to her what was
going on in my life; that I had a new partner and that he and my first
partner were becoming equally important to me as lifemates. She didn't
say anything nasty or anything, but she became visibly agitated. She
became less agitated when I began describing the "community" aspects -- I
told her that this was called polyamory, and that there was a whole
community of people who happened to live this way and had come together in
support. It was reassuring to her that I wasn't the only person like this
in the world, and that I didn't have to forge a new path completely on my
own.
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
straf samantha
The talk of being out vs flaunting hits home really hard to me and is one
that I react to way out of proportion. Partially since I'm currently working
on the GLBT committee at chruch and we are going for the 'welcoming
congregation' status next year (UU's version of queer acceptance) so I have
been dealing with the issue a lot. Some folks are very private - for
example I know NOTHING personal about one of my boss's except that she
plays tennis. Some folks are very outgoing/open/social. I will tell
the checkout girl that it is my anninversary today (3 years with pooch - woo!!!)
if she comments on me being in a good mood. So for me to not say to
anyone that asks what I am doing for the weekend that I am doing x with
y (qualified with my relationship with y) is being secretive.
I have pictures of my partners on my desk, In even the most casual of
friendships I make sure they know I have more then one partner. And
I came out in my christmas letter a few years ago explainig what poly
was and my relationship structure at the time. yeah I have had some
folks (namely my dad) not deal well with it but overall the reactions
have been very positive.
I've had people tell me that I was flaunting my polyness by listing all
my sweeties on my web page. Buy a person that had a wedding picture as
the main part of their web page along with a copy of the vows - sigh
sorry - getting rambly on this soapbox...
star
--
Samantha Star Straf Network Analyst
st...@uiuc.edu ITCS Academic Computing Facility, UIUC College of ACES
work: http://w3.aces.uiuc.edu/SSS/ I speak for myself, not UIUC
not work : http://www.prairienet.org/~star/
Mark Bernstein
On 23 Jun 1998 23:23:25 GMT, jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C)
wrote:
>
>Interesting theory, and you may be right specifically about Jill's mother.
>But my own mother was quite the opposite.
>
>I originally introduced the subject by just describing to her what was
>going on in my life; that I had a new partner and that he and my first
>partner were becoming equally important to me as lifemates. She didn't
>say anything nasty or anything, but she became visibly agitated. She
>became less agitated when I began describing the "community" aspects -- I
>told her that this was called polyamory, and that there was a whole
>community of people who happened to live this way and had come together in
>support. It was reassuring to her that I wasn't the only person like this
>in the world, and that I didn't have to forge a new path completely on my
>own.
>
Very Cool People. From the sound of, your mother wasn't upset because
she thought you were doing something wrong, she was worried because of
the hassles and prejudices you might have to face.
Mark Bernstein
markbe...@hotmail.com
Ann Arbor, MI
bria...@aol.com
In article <6mpg2f$d6a$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
st...@staff.uiuc.edu (straf samantha) wrote:
...
>
> I've had people tell me that I was flaunting my polyness by listing all
> my sweeties on my web page. Buy a person that had a wedding picture as
> the main part of their web page along with a copy of the vows - sigh
>
> sorry - getting rambly on this soapbox...
>
> star
I find it rather ironic that that which would have been deemed a paragon of
social success in adolescence (a list of sweethearts) draws flak in
adulthood... what changes?
In any case, I think it took courage to come out to your mother, even if she
would up putting it in a more-comfortable frame of reference.
Brian
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Lyre
"Lorrie" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have always been a little different from the rest of my family (if it
>wasn't for the fact that I strongly resemble my father, I'd swear I was
>adopted). It always made me feel like an outsider in my own family. It's
>only been in the last few years that I've felt close to my family. I guess
>that I'm afraid that anything of magnitude would shake the tenuous bonds
>that I've been working so hard to forge. It feels good not being an
>outsider, even if I'm not sharing my "whole" self with them.
Interesting. I have a sort of opposite reaction with my family.
I'd say I'm not just a little but a lot different from my family.
As far as they're concerned, I'm way, way out there. And I felt the
most estranged from them the more I hid my "whole" self from them.
I'm feeling closer and closer to them (though there's plenty
distance to cover still) the more open I am with them, and damn
the consequences. As long as I hid things from them, whatever bonds
I had with them (and they were few and far between) felt inauthentic.
-Lyre
--
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way when you criticize them, you'll be a mile away.
Also, you'll have their shoes.
Lyre
bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
>That compartmentalization
>feels very unnatural to me, and it pisses me off that it's much
>less (arguably) necessary/expected for people who more-or-less fit
>the mainstream.
God, yeah. It makes me envious. I'd love to be able to just be,
without having to do the compartmentalization thing.
>(*) My usual compromise (or cop-out, if you wish) is that my family
>and co-workers generally know how I feel about things like queer
>rights (if it comes up, which it often does), even if they don't
>always know how personal the issue is.
And what thoroughly amazes me is that no matter how vocal I am
about queer rights (for ex), the default is still to assume I'm
straight (or whatever), and just trying to be ethical.
Lyre
pir...@pobox.com wrote:
> i've recently come to wonder about others' ability to be
> offended even when something isn't flaunted. my partner
> and i are about to ditch the rat race and start our own
> company, out in BC, and we'll live on a boat, travelling
> up and down the coast, exploring, and basically having
> ourselves a small adventure.
>
> the reactions to these news fall basically into three
> categories: 1) wow. that's amazing. i wish i could do
> that. 2) have you really thought about this carefully?
> about everything you'd be giving up? 3) good ghod, you
> are nuts.
>
> the people in category 3 seem actually rather defensive
> while going into detail on all the horror stories they
> have ever heard. they are, bar none, people who have
> been bitching about everything in their lives for as
> long as i've known them -- everything is too expensive,
> too crowded, lawyers/doctors/automechanics are crooked.
> they get very emotional, and i am starting to wonder
> whether this isn't a reaction to feeling we are rejec-
> ting their choices, their lifestyle, with which they've
> not been happy, but haven't managed to change, but ra-
> ther have made sacrifices to support -- and we're just
> ditching it all wholesale.
>
> interesting.
Yeah, I have this theory that the more bitter people are about
the state of their own lives, the more they feel the need for
everyone around them to be equally miserable. Like there's
something *wrong* with people if they are honestly able
to enjoy life. At the very least, they must be morally weak.
What you're planning to do sounds awesome, by the way.
bearpaw
lyr...@earthlink.net (Lyre) writes:
> ...
>And what thoroughly amazes me is that no matter how vocal I am
>about queer rights (for ex), the default is still to assume I'm
>straight (or whatever), and just trying to be ethical.
Or "politically correct" (from folks who still think that's a
meaningful -- and negative -- phrase). Or "liberal", also generally
meant negatively. (Liberal? *Me*? Bearpaw don't do dichotomy.)
Mostly people assume I'm straight (especially if the sex of my
partner becomes clear), sometimes people assume I'm gay (depending
on context, my behavior, etc).
Bearpaw
"Try speaking both honestly and courteously. It can be done. All it
requires is the civility of a well-taught child and the vocabulary
of an intelligent adult." -- Keir Jones
Matthew Daly
I'll never forget the time that st...@staff.uiuc.edu (straf samantha)
said:
>The talk of being out vs flaunting hits home really hard to me and is one
>that I react to way out of proportion. Partially since I'm currently working
>on the GLBT committee at chruch and we are going for the 'welcoming
>congregation' status next year (UU's version of queer acceptance) so I have
>been dealing with the issue a lot.
That's still a process for the UU's? For some reason, Why did I think
that they were the first Xian denomination to the finish line.
>I will tell
>the checkout girl that it is my anninversary today (3 years with pooch - woo!!!)
Look at how you hide this away! Congrats to the two of you!! (I'm
jealous because I'm not sure when to mark an anniversairy with my
current sweetie, it just seemed to kinda happen over a while.)
>I've had people tell me that I was flaunting my polyness by listing all
>my sweeties on my web page. Buy a person that had a wedding picture as
>the main part of their web page along with a copy of the vows - sigh
How can a personal web page be flaunting? A person would have to make a
choice to go there.
I am reminded of one of the Sunday morning news shows on TV where they
were talking to some influential Republican congressman about some
Clinton appointee. (Of course I can't remember any names, perhaps it
will be familiar to someone.) The congressman was planning to vote
against the appointment, "not because he's gay, which is perfectly fine,
but because he promotes the gay lifestyle." By handing out leaflets in
front of high schools? No, by marching in a pride parade. <sigh>
Every time I hear about someone thinking that people who are out are
promoters, it makes me want to say "You keep using that word. I do not
think it means what you think it means."
-Matthew
--
Matthew Daly mwd...@pobox.com
My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right - Ashleigh Brilliant
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
--- Support the anti-Spam amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org ---
bearpaw
mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) writes:
>
>straf samantha said:
>>I will tell
>>the checkout girl that it is my anninversary today (3 years with
>>pooch - woo!!!)
Congrats!
>>I've had people tell me that I was flaunting my polyness by listing all
>>my sweeties on my web page. Buy a person that had a wedding picture as
>>the main part of their web page along with a copy of the vows - sigh
>
>How can a personal web page be flaunting? A person would have to make a
>choice to go there.
Well, sorta. But they might not know what's there. I think *all*
personal web pages are "flaunting", to some extent. Straf's point
about the double-standard is right, though.
>I am reminded of one of the Sunday morning news shows on TV where they
>were talking to some influential Republican congressman about some
>Clinton appointee. (Of course I can't remember any names, perhaps it
>will be familiar to someone.) The congressman was planning to vote
>against the appointment, "not because he's gay, which is perfectly fine,
>but because he promotes the gay lifestyle." By handing out leaflets in
>front of high schools? No, by marching in a pride parade. <sigh>
>Every time I hear about someone thinking that people who are out are
>promoters, it makes me want to say "You keep using that word. I do not
>think it means what you think it means."
The word may or may not mean what they think it means. Unfortunately,
what they think the word means may have little to do with how they're
using it. The actual meaning of a word to a politician is often of
significantly less importance than the effect the word may have.
(Do they think marching in a St. Patrick's Day parade promotes the
"Irish lifestyle"? What "lifestyle" do they think Thanksgiving Day
parades promotes? Or, more to the point, what "lifestyle" do they
think other civil rights marches promote -- the '63 Freedom March
in D.C., for instance? It's not about "lifestyle", of course, it's
about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and analogous
concepts in other countries. But they resist acknowledging the
implications behind that with the "promotes the gay lifestyle"
smokescreen. Feh.)
Bearpaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson
Louise R. Howard
In article <6mq71i$di4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bria...@aol.com> wrote:
>I find it rather ironic that that which would have been deemed a paragon of
>social success in adolescence (a list of sweethearts) draws flak in
>adulthood... what changes?
As far as I can tell...
It depends on when you were an adolescent.
If it was before 1970s, then when you were dating a lot
of people, it was assumed you were sleeping with none of
them and reserved sex for once you were "going-steady"
After the sexual revolution, it was assumed that if you
were dating, you were fucking and thus, multiple boyfriend/girlfriends
was frowned upon (at least in MY highschool).
With the current pendulum swing and the evangelical virgins,
(or with the idea that polyamory is a viable life choice)
multiple datees might be coming back into vogue.
-Louise
Guy W. Thomas
On 24 Jun 1998 00:08:47 GMT, st...@staff.uiuc.edu (straf samantha)
wrote:
>The talk of being out vs flaunting hits home really hard to me and is one
>that I react to way out of proportion. Partially since I'm currently working
>on the GLBT committee at chruch and we are going for the 'welcoming
>congregation' status next year (UU's version of queer acceptance) so I have
>been dealing with the issue a lot. Some folks are very private - for
>example I know NOTHING personal about one of my boss's except that she
>plays tennis. Some folks are very outgoing/open/social. I will tell
>the checkout girl that it is my anninversary today (3 years with pooch - woo!!!)
Yeah, Stef.
>if she comments on me being in a good mood. So for me to not say to
>anyone that asks what I am doing for the weekend that I am doing x with
>y (qualified with my relationship with y) is being secretive.
>I have pictures of my partners on my desk, In even the most casual of
>friendships I make sure they know I have more then one partner. And
>I came out in my christmas letter a few years ago explainig what poly
>was and my relationship structure at the time. yeah I have had some
>folks (namely my dad) not deal well with it but overall the reactions
>have been very positive.
>
>I've had people tell me that I was flaunting my polyness by listing all
>my sweeties on my web page. Buy a person that had a wedding picture as
>the main part of their web page along with a copy of the vows - sigh
Why shouldn't you flaunt them? We all do it
poly/mono/gay/bi/trans/het, all of us. I'm with you Star. I'm proud
of the people I love. They're a big part of who I am.
>sorry - getting rambly on this soapbox...
>
>star
>
Stay up there you say good stuff.
--
Guy W. Thomas
Berkeley, CA
Homepage - http://www.sirius.com/~guyt
Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made victim.
Accept no one's definition of your life ... but define yourself. - Harvey Fierstein
Jill Lundquist
In article <6mpg2f$d6a$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
straf samantha <st...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Some folks are very private - for
>example I know NOTHING personal about one of my boss's except that she
>plays tennis. Some folks are very outgoing/open/social. I will tell
>the checkout girl that it is my anninversary today (3 years with pooch - woo!!!)
Happy anniversary!
This is something I find too often left out in discussions of
"flaunting" vs "discretion"; different people are simply comfortable
with different levels of talking about themselves.
Several years ago (but not long enough), the US state of Colorado,
where that I live, passed by popular vote a law forbidding the
passing of GLB-rights legislation in the state and rescinding such
legislation where it already existed. This law was delayed by a
Colorado judge on the grounds that it was likely unconstitutional and
later found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
I will never forget going to work the day after the election. I
worked in a small, fairly tightly-knit group of 15 or so people.
This group included M, a gay man who was out to me, to my MOTOS
coworker I was secretly dating, and to one of our colleagues who was
openly gay. M had come out only to the three of us not out of shame,
but out of a preference for not talking about his personal life. He
tends to be like the boss that Star described up there; one gets
little sense of his personal life, even though he's dynamic and
friendly and warm and well-liked. I prefer to be quite private
at work too, and I understand.
Anyway, M came out to the whole group that day, saying that he felt
it was no longer appropriate to keep this to himself, that with
people out in force ready to do harm to queerfolk it was no longer
right for him to behave as if this was simply a quiet private
matter. I agree with him, and I still feel guilty about deciding to
keep my own privacy about the love affair I was carrying on in the
office, even though M never held that against me. My situation and
M's were not parallel ones, but they should have been. It is unfair
and wrong that M should be compelled to give up the privacy that he
and I both prefer, and that I could keep it. It is unfair and wrong
that these people should create a climate so queer-hostile that M
should be coerced to act against his temperament.
When the day comes that the question of whether or not to mention a
lover depends on the situation and one's own temperament, not the sex
of the loved one, then the question of how much to tell will be a
personal taste rather than a political burden. And there will be no
need for the term "coming out."
lemusi...@hotmail.com
In article <6mrg0p$s3h$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Jill Lundquist) wrote:
> When the day comes that the question of whether or not to mention a
> lover depends on the situation and one's own temperament, not the sex
> of the loved one, then the question of how much to tell will be a
> personal taste rather than a political burden. And there will be no
> need for the term "coming out."
Give 'em hell, Harry!!! <wild applause>
Actually, I have a *very* gay-friendly work environment--2 gay boyz out of 20
in the department...do the math!! <g> I've been here so long that my
partner is accepted and even adored by the vast majority of my comrades (they
got to know him really well when he used to work one building over from ours,
and bring over sandwiches for us at lunch time--awwww....isn't that
special??).
--Will
Matthew Daly
I'll never forget the time that bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) said:
>mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) writes:
>
>>I am reminded of one of the Sunday morning news shows on TV where they
>>were talking to some influential Republican congressman about some
>>Clinton appointee. (Of course I can't remember any names, perhaps it
>>will be familiar to someone.) The congressman was planning to vote
>>against the appointment, "not because he's gay, which is perfectly fine,
>>but because he promotes the gay lifestyle." By handing out leaflets in
>>front of high schools? No, by marching in a pride parade. <sigh>
>>Every time I hear about someone thinking that people who are out are
>>promoters, it makes me want to say "You keep using that word. I do not
>>think it means what you think it means."
>
>The word may or may not mean what they think it means. Unfortunately,
>what they think the word means may have little to do with how they're
>using it. The actual meaning of a word to a politician is often of
>significantly less importance than the effect the word may have.
Yabbut isn't the effect that they seem like idiots? The most charitable
reading that I can think of is "I won't vote against you because you're
gay, I'm going to vote against you because I know that you're gay." It
makes no sense.
Okay, so I'm preaching to the converted, but how can there be any sort of
intellectual justification here?
-Matthew
Jim Roberts
Ryk wrote:
> When I came out to my parents I knew that their first reaction would
> be strongly negative, just like almost 20 years ago when I was telling
> them I was going to be living with P, or buying a motorcycle. My
> mother has been more accepting of my relationship choices. My father
> was more accepting of the motorcycle.
>
In my family it was my mother who wasn't clueless. When I went atheist
and fell in love with an Athapaskan girl at 12 (I had very fundamentalist
parents), my mother knew right away that something was seriously amiss.
But I still did my garden work.
Doing the familiar helps. My mother has gone from fundamentalist to
Jewish, as has my younger brother (conversion through marriage). That was
a big switch from Jews being the agents of Satan. They know what I think,
but I don't stuff it down their throats. My mom can't quite get a grip on
it though. Just do what you usually do and don't cause disruption. Ride
that bike!
> My parents have reacted with much more inflammatory comments than your
> mother's "Boulder thing" and we have followed through to acceptance on
> some of the hard stuff. Hang in there!
>
> Ryk
>
The Boulder thing seems to me to be very understanding and not at all
inflammatory. What I would have given for that other than my mother's
silence! Sometimes acceptance comes in wondrous ways. Hang in there is
exactly right.
jimbatYes, keep trying, but don't try too hard. You can only do so much.
It can be devastating when you put your whole soul into something and it
doesn't work.
> --
> Same Ryk, New Location.....
Siobhan
It was a dark and stormy night, when lemusi...@hotmail.com
suddenly said:
>Actually, I have a *very* gay-friendly work environment--2 gay boyz out of 20
>in the department...do the math!! <g> I've been here so long that my
>partner is accepted and even adored by the vast majority of my comrades (they
>got to know him really well when he used to work one building over from ours,
>and bring over sandwiches for us at lunch time--awwww....isn't that
>special??).
My work environment is pretty straight, but they all accept me
anyway. Mostly 'cause they are afraid of me.
(Well actually, I think it's because they like me, but I have this
image I have to maintain.)
Siobhan
wearing black
listening to politikill incorrect
...Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
{http://www.interlog.com/~siobhan} sio...@interlog.com
convergence IV site {http://www.interlog.com/~converg4}
I don't have a problem with men. I have a problem with STUPID men.~Maggie Estep
Guy W. Thomas
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:15:27 GMT, gu...@sirius.com (Guy W. Thomas)
wrote:
>On 24 Jun 1998 00:08:47 GMT, st...@staff.uiuc.edu (straf samantha)
>wrote:
>
>>The talk of being out vs flaunting hits home really hard to me and is one
>>that I react to way out of proportion. Partially since I'm currently working
>>on the GLBT committee at chruch and we are going for the 'welcoming
>>congregation' status next year (UU's version of queer acceptance) so I have
>>been dealing with the issue a lot. Some folks are very private - for
>>example I know NOTHING personal about one of my boss's except that she
>>plays tennis. Some folks are very outgoing/open/social. I will tell
>>the checkout girl that it is my anninversary today (3 years with pooch - woo!!!)
>
>Yeah, Stef.
>
GACK, oh dear, I mean Yeah, Star of course. I'm sorry Star.
Giles
Intellectual justification from a politician? Ha!
--
Giles
Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<35917bd5....@news.frontiernet.net>...
> I'll never forget the time that bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) said:
>
> >mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) writes:
> >
<SNIPPED>
Ryk
On 23 Jun 1998 18:08:29 GMT, ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Jill
Lundquist) wrote:
>I don't feel that I'm protecting her from a deeper truth here; I feel
>that more detail of my truth will emerge over the next several years,
>and will grow and change as my relationship structure grows and
>changes. It took me a long time to accept myself as having a strong
>preference for polyamory, and I don't see why I should ask my mother
>to do it more quickly than I did.
Very well said!
When I came out to my parents I knew that their first reaction would
be strongly negative, just like almost 20 years ago when I was telling
them I was going to be living with P, or buying a motorcycle. My
mother has been more accepting of my relationship choices. My father
was more accepting of the motorcycle.
My parents have reacted with much more inflammatory comments than your
mother's "Boulder thing" and we have followed through to acceptance on
some of the hard stuff. Hang in there!
Ryk
Ryk
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:27:52 GMT, mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly)
wrote:
>I'll never forget the time that st...@staff.uiuc.edu (straf samantha)
>said:
>>...on the GLBT committee at chruch and we are going for the 'welcoming
>>congregation' status next year (UU's version of queer acceptance) so I have
>>been dealing with the issue a lot.
>
>That's still a process for the UU's? For some reason, Why did I think
>that they were the first Xian denomination to the finish line.
Our local UU congregation is ministered to by a lesbian who is quite
publicly out. This is apparently not a problem for the congregation,
or the UU organization.
Also, as I understand UU, it is neither an Xian (the followers of
Scully and Muldar? ;-) ) nor a Christian denomination, but a
fellowship that welcomes people from a broad spectrum of religious
traditions, including people like me......
Annette M. Stroud
In article <6mrg0p$s3h$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Jill Lundquist <ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>Several years ago (but not long enough), the US state of Colorado,
>where that I live, passed by popular vote a law forbidding the
>passing of GLB-rights legislation in the state and rescinding such
>legislation where it already existed. This law was delayed by a
>Colorado judge on the grounds that it was likely unconstitutional and
>later found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.
>
Using Jill's story as a jumping off point for my own...
I, too, live in Colorado. The Sunday after the election I went to church.
I had promised I would say something about the election during prayers and
concerns. Fine. But they had changed the order of service for that
particular Sunday, and I wasn't emotionally prepared to make my little
spiel. Did that stop me? Of course not. Anything worth doing is
worth doing with a squeaky sob choked voice. I think what I said went
something along the lines of "Our prayers should go to the Lesbian and Gay
Community this morning. I am concerned that the church has shown itself
in the recent election as mean spirited, and not with the spirit of love."
Or some such. Anyway, people came up to me to tell me
how brave I was. And I came to realize that as far as my church was
concerned I had come out. It was clarifying; found out who my friends
were and were not.
Anyway, I am not exactly a lesbian. (If I figure out what I am, and if it
can every be accurately described on either a button or a label, I'll let
y'all know.) But I am also not not a lesbian. I think humans are sexual
beings, that sexual orientation is even more complex than a continuum, and
that even within the life of one individual there is much fluctuation.
It was painful when my son was taken just a few weeks after the election
in question. He was not returned from a weekend visit with his father.
His father took him to Algeria. (My son was gone for 4 months; I have him
now). There were people who thought my ex was justified for taking him
because of my alleged sexuality.
Annette (Once when I complained about always be taken for a lesbian, my
friend replied, "Well, you do wear sensible shoes.")
PS I also wanted to jump on Jill's post earlier. When my parents were
here last week, my dad talked about going to a UCC church while they were
visiting. "UCC churches which are Open and Affirming are the fastest
growing mainline denomination churches," sez my dad. "Yes, but I think
theologically the UU church would suit me better." 'Twasn't 'til later
that I twigged to fact that he was trying to be accepting of *me*.
Ryk
> From the sound of, your mother wasn't upset because
>she thought you were doing something wrong, she was worried because of
>the hassles and prejudices you might have to face.
Which is also a pretty good description of my mother's response.
And also a pretty good description of responses to mixed race
relationships in the community where I grew up.....
Matthew Daly
I'll never forget the time that r...@cgocable.net (Ryk) said:
>On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:27:52 GMT, mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly)
>wrote:
>
>>I'll never forget the time that st...@staff.uiuc.edu (straf samantha)
>>said:
>
>>>...on the GLBT committee at chruch and we are going for the 'welcoming
>>>congregation' status next year (UU's version of queer acceptance) so I have
>>>been dealing with the issue a lot.
>>
>>That's still a process for the UU's? For some reason, Why did I think
>>that they were the first Xian denomination to the finish line.
>
>Our local UU congregation is ministered to by a lesbian who is quite
>publicly out. This is apparently not a problem for the congregation,
>or the UU organization.
Oh, I'm not surprised a bit by that. All the UU's that I've ever met have
been so astounding accepting that I didn't figure that any individual
congregations would still be going through a process.
ObPoly: I helped to write the Open and Affirming statement for a Disciples
of Christ church that I belonged to six or seven years ago. I fought hard
for writing something without a laundry list of what we were tolerant of,
and instead saying something transcendant like "There is no human
condition that is a barrier to Christian salvation, and as long as you
don't smoke in the sanctuary you're okay with us". <sigh> The Board of
Elders wasn't up for it, so we got the List. And, looking at it,
transgenderism isn't there, and poly isn't there. I mean, none of us had
ever heard of poly (and this was in _Berkeley_). (BTW, Star, I've still
got a pile of resources from our search if you're interested.)
>Also, as I understand UU, it is neither an Xian (the followers of
>Scully and Muldar? ;-) ) nor a Christian denomination, but a
>fellowship that welcomes people from a broad spectrum of religious
>traditions, including people like me......
Yeah, I figured that I had a choice between apologizing to the UU's for
calling them Christian or apologizing to the pagans for claiming that the
UU's were the first religion to accept gays. :-) Apologies also for the
"xian" line; I should have just spelled it out.
[falling on knees sobbing] I really did lurk here for a month before
posting, I swear I did!
-Matthew
Steve Lewis
bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>How can a personal web page be flaunting? A person would have to make a
>>choice to go there.
> Well, sorta. But they might not know what's there. I think *all*
> personal web pages are "flaunting", to some extent. Straf's point
> about the double-standard is right, though.
Seems to me that it depends on how deep the poly content is hidden. Is it
on the front page, or is the actual content a click or more in? Links
lead to links lead to links and while I think I don't know enough about
Star's page or the situation in this one, I can see where a claim could be
leveyed whether I agree with either side or not. [just perspective]
I keep considering whether or not there ought to be any connection between
two web sites I author because if there is, it would out me on a number of
things and I am not quite 100% sure that I want that yet so this tugged my
sleeve as I read it.
> (Do they think marching in a St. Patrick's Day parade promotes the
> "Irish lifestyle"? What "lifestyle" do they think Thanksgiving Day
OK, I want Bearpaw on my side when we pick teams! :)
Steve
--
nep...@ricochet.net
bearpaw
mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) writes:
>
>I'll never forget the time that bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) said:
>>The word may or may not mean what they think it means. Unfortunately,
>>what they think the word means may have little to do with how they're
>>using it. The actual meaning of a word to a politician is often of
>>significantly less importance than the effect the word may have.
>
>Yabbut isn't the effect that they seem like idiots? The most charitable
>reading that I can think of is "I won't vote against you because you're
>gay, I'm going to vote against you because I know that you're gay." It
>makes no sense.
Not to you or me, perhaps, but to all too many folks it does. And the
"promoting" crap wins over some of the borderline cases that don't
understand the double-standard it represents.
>Okay, so I'm preaching to the converted, but how can there be any sort of
>intellectual justification here?
They're not currying the intellectual vote. If most voters were at
least reasonably rational, this bullshit wouldn't work. But they
aren't, so it *does* work, so *of course* that's a tactic that most
politicians use (if not always in that context), otherwise they'd
need to get respectable jobs. (Or at least go back to being
ambulance-chasers.)
Bearpaw
"Forget your stereotypes, your fears. Straight people are not what
you have been led to believe. They're a wonderfully diverse bunch,
though the flamboyant ones hog all the media attention." - M. Goff
JennieD-O'C
markbe...@hotmail.com (Mark Bernstein) wrote:
> From the sound of, your mother wasn't upset because
>she thought you were doing something wrong, she was worried because of
>the hassles and prejudices you might have to face.
Well, yes and no. I know that was a good part of it, but I'm sure there
was also a large element of wondering if something like that works at all
if it's never been tried before. My mother isn't the adventurous type,
and doing things that haven't been done by large groups of people before
really scares her. It was reassuring to her that there was a whole
community of people doing it, since that proved it could possibly work
out.
---
Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
JennieD-O'C
Matthew Daly <mwd...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Oh, I'm not surprised a bit by that. All the UU's that I've ever met have
>been so astounding accepting that I didn't figure that any individual
>congregations would still be going through a process.
It would be nice, but alas, it is not the case. A couple of years ago I
had an ongoing debate in soc.religion.unitarian-univ with many very
outspoken individuals who said (among other things) that if the UU church
started performing poly marriages, that they'd leave the church, that
accepting polyamory is a step along the slippery slope to accepting
pedophiles, that polyamory is just for the weak and faint-hearted who
can't commit, and several other such gems.
I am not a Unitarian-Universalist, but I am very sympathetic to their
philosophy, and was married in a UU church. I forwarded most of the
discussion to the minister who performed our ceremony, and he was
horrified. He eventually wrote a long missive about how disappointed he
was in their beliefs, and all conversation stopped after that.
If anyone wants to check it out, it's all archived in Dejanews. I entered
the fray in July of 1996, but the argument was going on before I joined
it. I believe there was something about "polyamorous marriages" in the
thread title.
>The Board of
>Elders wasn't up for it, so we got the List. And, looking at it,
>transgenderism isn't there, and poly isn't there.
Yeah, it's funny how Boards of Elders in any church are inevitably *much*
more conservative than the rest of the congregation. That's why I don't
go to church anymore, actually. After the Board of Elders refused to
allow our pastor to perform our poly wedding ceremony, and then
subsequently went on a witch-hunt to have *him* thrown out for being poly
-- and this in a supposedly "open and affirming" church -- I just don't
have enough trust left in me to try again.
What, bitter, me?
>Apologies also for the
>"xian" line; I should have just spelled it out.
We love you, Matthew! <hug>
Mark A Kille
In article <Ev41o...@world.std.com>, bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote:
>mwd...@pobox.com (Matthew Daly) writes:
>>
>>Yabbut isn't the effect that they seem like idiots? The most charitable
>>reading that I can think of is "I won't vote against you because you're
>>gay, I'm going to vote against you because I know that you're gay." It
>>makes no sense.
>
>Not to you or me, perhaps, but to all too many folks it does. And the
>"promoting" crap wins over some of the borderline cases that don't
>understand the double-standard it represents.
It's a double standard, but I think it's more "I won't vote against
you because you're gay, I'm going to vote against you because you
think it's OK for other people to be gay too." As in, one person,
maybe they suffer from some Genetic Affliction or Horrible Childhood
Trauma--but to suggest it's part of a normal life? Unacceptable!
>
>They're not currying the intellectual vote. If most voters were at
>least reasonably rational, this bullshit wouldn't work. But they
>aren't, so it *does* work, so *of course* that's a tactic that most
>politicians use (if not always in that context), otherwise they'd
>need to get respectable jobs. (Or at least go back to being
>ambulance-chasers.)
To be fair, I don't think homophobia is an inherently irrational
or anti-intellectual attitude. If one accepts the immorality of
homosexuality as a premise of one's religion--not just because
"the Bible says so" (which can be picked apart so many ways it's
not even funny), but because it's been historically supported
by one's religious leaders and thinkers _and_ the Bible says so--
and one accepts the validity and importance of one's religion,
then it is completely rational to be homophobic, and one can
be uber-intellectual and hold those sorts of beliefs.
Many people see the double standard as a reasonable compromise
between their own deeply-held beliefs and the realities of
a (reasonably) free society. It's hard for me to argue with
them on the basis of appeals to reason. They're still completely
wrong about gays, of course, but not because they're irrational.
--Mark Kille
--
"For relaxation the King breeds dairy cattle, raises improved strains of
rice, plays badminton, and runs a home workshop in which he has assembled
both a sailboat and a working helicopter."
--Thailand Today, c.1968
Bettina
To piggyback off this thread, we recently had another spate of
coming-outs (comings-out? what on earth is the proper plural for that?).
I talked to my Dad (already out to Mom, who is very very cool about it
after the initial shock -- she just said "I always wanted more
children") and he said something along the lines of "I thought you were
doing some sort of alternative lifestyle thing. That's cool. We love and
respect you." which is a good first step, though I don't think he quite
gets the permanence of the relationship yet. That will come in time,
though. I really don't know why I did it; I had intended to wait until
he had met D and L, since that worked so well with Mom. It was a small
weight off the shoulders, though.
Then X came out to his Mom (without warning. It was a bit of a shock to
be sitting on the porch with L and suddenly overhear what could only be
a coming-out conversation, especially not knowing who it was with.) It
went a little less well, but passably. Once she got to "so it's not a
sex thing, it's a family thing?" it went better (I'm not going to fight
that assumption. Our families, imo, need to know who we love, but more
detail than that is more than I want to give and they want to hear), but
she was clearly the most greatly relieved that *her* biological
offspring was heterosexual. I hadn't realized that she didn't know I was
bi, 'cause I'm hardly closeted, but we'll see how that goes. We will be
seeing her in person in a few months, so that will probably make our
"vacation" nice and stressful. <sigh>
I still have some a sibling to come out to, since we will be attending
said sibling's wedding on the same vacation, and I am hoping to be able
to bring our entire quartet. I'll be really glad when this stage is
over. It makes me too nervous to have to keep coming out to people.
Though I am glad we waited this long, since the "we have already been
together for over a year" is a decent starting counter to the "It'll
never work" nay-sayers.
Bettina
--
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Village/1597/
GypsyJack
straf samantha wrote:
[snip]
> Buy a person that had a wedding picture as
> the main part of their web page along with a copy of the vows - sigh
Why would I want to *buy* one of those?? I can get all I want for free
at the local bapist church??:)
> sorry - getting rambly on this soapbox...
Don't be, ya done good!
GypsyJack, almost sorry about the fluff:)
--
Email: jvan...@bayarea.net - Home Page:
http://www.bayarea.net/~jvanbree
(only 2 lines!! happy now??:) ICQ: 5014460
Libris Solar
On 22 Jun 1998, Jill Lundquist wrote:
(Text removed)
> There were a lot of things I left out; I didn't use the word
> "polyamory", didn't mention that I have no plans to be monogamous
> again, didn't tell about my many polyamorous friends, and didn't say
> anything about the shifting in my sexual orientation that has been
> leading me to some internal turmoil lately. I figure that those
> things will come up eventually if they turn out to be issues.
>
> Having finished the basic exposition, I fell silent to hear what she
> had to say. She sat for some time, and eventually said, deadpan,
> "This is some kind of Boulder thing, isn't it?" I smiled, and she
> changed the subject, and we talked about other things.
>
> Much later on, I said, "I'm really glad you didn't freak out over
> the thing with <partner1> and <partner2> and all that." She shook
> her head and said simply, "I don't freak out about stuff like that."
> And she's been true to her word.
>
> So I've planted some kind of seed, and will wait patiently to see what
> comes up.
>
> --
> Jill Lundquist ji...@cs.colorado.edu
Jill, that sounds wonderful!
Your Mom sounds like a real nice person.
I'm so glad she listened and didn't respond in a bad way.
Bravo!
I too hope good things come from your sharing.
Very encouraging,
libris
Debbie Notkin
In article <6mrg0p$s3h$1...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Jill Lundquist) wrote:
>When the day comes that the question of whether or not to mention a
>lover depends on the situation and one's own temperament, not the sex
>of the loved one, then the question of how much to tell will be a
>personal taste rather than a political burden. And there will be no
>need for the term "coming out."
Well spoken, Jill.
A Lesbian friend of mine recently told me that a particularly powerful and
clueless man in the science fiction community said on a panel that there
was no real difference between being gay and being straight except for the
details of what gets done in bed.
"Oh, really," she said. "How did your parents react when you told them you
were straight?"
Ryk
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 12:08:11 -0400, Bettina <bzm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I still have some a sibling to come out to, since we will be attending
>said sibling's wedding on the same vacation, and I am hoping to be able
>to bring our entire quartet.
We recently faced a similar situation, hoping we would all get
invitations, but not wanting to get into the situation of upstaging a
wedding with a coming out. People's nerves are always a little frayed
around weddings and I would advise against adding to the emotional
complexity.
Ryk, cautious for once
Siobhan
It was a dark and stormy night, when r...@cgocable.net (Ryk) suddenly
said:
>When I came out to my parents I knew that their first reaction would
>be strongly negative, just like almost 20 years ago when I was telling
>them I was going to be living with P, or buying a motorcycle. My
>mother has been more accepting of my relationship choices. My father
>was more accepting of the motorcycle.
This made me laugh. My father knows about my polyamory, my
sexuality and BC's gender.
I know for a fact that when I get my motorcycle, I had better not
tell him.
Siobhan
brigid
Lyre wrote:
>
> bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
>
> >That compartmentalization
> >feels very unnatural to me, and it pisses me off that it's much
> >less (arguably) necessary/expected for people who more-or-less fit
> >the mainstream.
>
> God, yeah. It makes me envious. I'd love to be able to just be,
> without having to do the compartmentalization thing.
> -Lyre
huh - if i didn't compartmentalize, i'd never be able to function. my
parents don't see the real me cause i've decided they can't handle it.
previous experience has shown them to be not very accepting people, and
to have a definite image of what they want their kids to be, even if the
kids have decided its not healthy. i show them the face they want, and
all my friends get the face that is me, and my boyfriend gets the face
that is more intimate and honest, and my coworkers get a blend. like,
i've told my coworkers that i'm pagan, but i can't joke with like i can
with my other friends - probably the setting.
brigid
straf samantha
Steve Lewis <nep...@members.ricochet.net> asked:
>Seems to me that it depends on how deep the poly content is hidden. Is it
>on the front page, or is the actual content a click or more in? Links
that says "my personal page" from there (an index of about 7 pages) you
goto 'people' at the top it says "My sweeties"...
>Star's page or the situation in this one, I can see where a claim could be
>leveyed whether I agree with either side or not. [just perspective]
So after reading their complaint I went to their page - which had
as the first thing a large wedding picture and a link to the ceremony -
then about 4 other lines/links about various 'work' stuff. I just found
it pretty double standard.
star
--
Samantha Star Straf Network Analyst
st...@uiuc.edu ITCS Academic Computing Facility, UIUC College of ACES
work: http://w3.aces.uiuc.edu/SSS/ I speak for myself, not UIUC
not work : http://www.prairienet.org/~star/
straf samantha
> Matthew Daly asked:
>>That's still a process for the UU's? For some reason, Why did I think
>>that they were the first Xian denomination to the finish line.
UUA (the national level) have issued some very positive and supporting
satements. The 'Welcoming Congregation' status ( like the 'More Light'
in prespetarians and something else in church of crist) means that that
specific chruch has passed a resulution to be welcoming of GLBT and
have done various things (held workshops, list partners in directory...)
to show this support. It will probally be a simple vote, but there
is a small and vocal group that dosen't like there to be any "Tell you what
to believe" type of things for our chruch .......
ObPoly: I'm out about being poly at chruch and have made various announcments
about my different partners.
Ryk added:
>Scully and Muldar? ;-) ) nor a Christian denomination, but a
>fellowship that welcomes people from a broad spectrum of religious
>traditions, including people like me......
UU is a derivitive of christianity but is a creadless religion.
I'm not feeling really ackward about discussion since i'm feeling it
borders on flaunting my religion - if you want more info i think the
web page is uua.org
JennieD-O'C
straf samantha <st...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>ObPoly: I'm out about being poly at chruch and have made various
>announcments about my different partners.
I was out as poly at the United Church of Christ congregation I was a
member of back in 1992-1994, myself. We even occasionally brought Iain
with us to church, and we talked about our relationship very openly with
everyone. Superficially, at least, the majority of the other members
seemed accepting. But then the church council (sorta like a "Board of
Elders") decided that they wouldn't allow the church to be used for our
poly wedding, and wouldn't allow their minister to perform the ceremony in
another building, either.
They said they didn't want the media attention. *Media* attention? It
was a *wedding*, not a circus. I'm still disgusted.
Jennie, who didn't have a single news crew show up at her wedding; imagine
that!
Debbie Notkin
In article <6muf2m$nt6$1...@news.interlog.com>,
sio...@interlog.com._removetomailme_ (Siobhan) wrote:
> This made me laugh. My father knows about my polyamory, my
>sexuality and BC's gender.
>
> I know for a fact that when I get my motorcycle, I had better not
>tell him.
I have Lesbian friends who had to get married without the father of one
of them present. Why wouldn't he attend? Did he mind that they're both
women? No. They both insist that they really believe he supports their
relationship completely.
But he flatly refused to attend a vegetarian wedding (!)
Go figure.
bearpaw
ki...@slip.net (Debbie Notkin) writes:
>
>I have Lesbian friends who had to get married without the father of one
>of them present. Why wouldn't he attend? Did he mind that they're both
>women? No. They both insist that they really believe he supports their
>relationship completely.
>
>But he flatly refused to attend a vegetarian wedding (!)
>
>Go figure.
This sorta boggled me until I thought about it. No doubt there are
folks committed enough to vegetarianism to refuse to go to a
non-vegetarian wedding, why should it surprise me that there might be
someone committed enough to omnivorianism(?) to refuse to go to a
vegetarian wedding? (Um, yeah, I bet I could think of arguably ethical
grounds for being omnivorous. Not that I'd agree with 'em, but I
could certainly think of some for devil's advocate purposes.)
Which is not to say I'd think much of either reason for not attending
a wedding.
But then, I have my *own* issues about weddings, especially the state-
recognized kind in the US. And yeah, I've also *officiated* a state-
recognized wedding.
(Getcher mixed feelin's here, nice an' fresh, three fer a dollah!)
Bearpaw
"The most violent element in society is ignorance."
- Emma Goldman
piranha
In article <Ev68u...@world.std.com>, bearpaw <bea...@world.std.com> wrote:
>ki...@slip.net (Debbie Notkin) writes:
>>
>>But he flatly refused to attend a vegetarian wedding (!)
>>
>>Go figure.
>
>This sorta boggled me until I thought about it.
this boggles me even after thinking about me. since when
is the purpose of a wedding to go and stuff oneself? if
one can't abide the menu, bring take-out, and smuggle it
onto the plate, or pick 'n choose what one's sense of food
ethics can handle, or just don't eat. this might be a
good thing to bring up if one's in any way involved in the
pre-wedding discussions -- alternative food choices for
people with special needs in that department.
i've always thought a wedding was an occasion where the
happy beloveds affirmed their commitment to each other in
front of their community. ergo, when i get invited to a
wedding and can make it, i go to participate in that par-
ticular purpose. the food isn't a consideration for me.
if i wanna stuff myself, i go to a chinese buffet. :-)
>Which is not to say I'd think much of either reason for not attending
>a wedding.
precisely.
>But then, I have my *own* issues about weddings, especially the state-
>recognized kind in the US.
marriages, you mean. i didn't think the government was ac-
tually behind those white dreams worth thousands-of-dollars.
i have my thought about state-sponsored marriages, yup, and
i have my thoughts about the wedding industry, yup. they're
none too charitable, but i've recently done this one, so i
will spare y'all.
-piranha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
please help fight spam -- http://www.cauce.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle
Debbie Notkin wrote:
> Well spoken, Jill.
>
> A Lesbian friend of mine recently told me that a particularly powerful and
> clueless man in the science fiction community said on a panel that there
> was no real difference between being gay and being straight except for the
> details of what gets done in bed.
>
> "Oh, really," she said. "How did your parents react when you told them you
> were straight?"
Amusingly enough, I have a friend who spent quite a bit of time with a gay
friend when in his late teens. This led his parents to simply assume that he
was gay and not telling them. They were very accepting and supportive of
their "gay" son. They even tried to introduce him to other men when his
friend left town. It took about 2 years to finally convince them that he was
indeed straight. I remember him disgustedly announcing to me at one point
that he could be having his way with a woman on the couch when they came into
the room and that they would just think he was doing it to try to make them
happy.
Michelle
Rich
>straf samantha <st...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>ObPoly: I'm out about being poly at chruch and have made various
>>announcments about my different partners.
>
>I was out as poly at the United Church of Christ congregation I was a
>member of back in 1992-1994, myself. We even occasionally brought Iain
>with us to church, and we talked about our relationship very openly with
>everyone. Superficially, at least, the majority of the other members
>seemed accepting. But then the church council (sorta like a "Board of
>Elders") decided that they wouldn't allow the church to be used for our
>poly wedding, and wouldn't allow their minister to perform the ceremony in
>another building, either.
>
Well, I wish I could be open. I belong to a United Methodist church. The
pastors know about it, but can't condone it, and there are tons of
parishoners who really have a problem with it. I think most of it is
ignorance. But, a large part is also their belief in the traditional
teachings. Oh well, guess I get to keep it to myself there too.
Rich
Ryk
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 05:36:30 GMT, ki...@slip.net (Debbie Notkin) wrote:
>But he flatly refused to attend a vegetarian wedding (!)
It's a male carnivore thing. If you want them to attend, then you need
to provide times and places for killing and eating within the
schedule, just as you might try to avoid conflict with the scheduled
prayers of most of your guests.
As an omnivore, if I were invited to a "vegetarian wedding"
I would feel marginalized. It would feel like an invitation to
show up, but shut up. OTOH, I might not notice if all the wedding
fare just happened to be meatless, as long as nobody was
*flaunting* that fact ;-)
Ryk
Lyre
bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
>ki...@slip.net (Debbie Notkin) writes:
>>
>>But he flatly refused to attend a vegetarian wedding (!)
>>
>>Go figure.
>
>This sorta boggled me until I thought about it. No doubt there are
>folks committed enough to vegetarianism to refuse to go to a
>non-vegetarian wedding, why should it surprise me that there might be
>someone committed enough to omnivorianism(?) to refuse to go to a
>vegetarian wedding? (Um, yeah, I bet I could think of arguably ethical
>grounds for being omnivorous. Not that I'd agree with 'em, but I
>could certainly think of some for devil's advocate purposes.)
Off-topic, I know, but could you name one?
>Which is not to say I'd think much of either reason for not attending
>a wedding.
>
>But then, I have my *own* issues about weddings, especially the state-
>recognized kind in the US. And yeah, I've also *officiated* a state-
>recognized wedding.
>
>(Getcher mixed feelin's here, nice an' fresh, three fer a dollah!)
:-) I've had a couple friends who've actually apologized to me
for inviting me to their US-state-recognized weddings because "I
know how you feel about them." Hell, I wish they'd explain to *me*
how I feel about them, because I sure don't know!
(I attended, by the way. Even acted pleasant).
-Lyre
By the way, what does <g> mean?
Guy W. Thomas
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 05:14:12 GMT, r...@cgocable.net (Ryk) wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 05:36:30 GMT, ki...@slip.net (Debbie Notkin) wrote:
>
>>But he flatly refused to attend a vegetarian wedding (!)
>
>It's a male carnivore thing. If you want them to attend, then you need
>to provide times and places for killing and eating within the
>schedule, just as you might try to avoid conflict with the scheduled
>prayers of most of your guests.
>
>As an omnivore, if I were invited to a "vegetarian wedding"
>I would feel marginalized. It would feel like an invitation to
>show up, but shut up. OTOH, I might not notice if all the wedding
>fare just happened to be meatless, as long as nobody was
>*flaunting* that fact ;-)
>
>Ryk
>
(chuckle), Here I am Ryk, I'm eating carrots and lettuce and peas and
oooooooh asperagus. And ya know what? I'm eating 'em RAW! ;-)
--
Guy W. Thomas
Berkeley, CA
Homepage - http://www.sirius.com/~guyt
Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made victim.
Accept no one's definition of your life ... but define yourself. - Harvey Fierstein
JennieD-O'C
Lyre <lyr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
>>But then, I have my *own* issues about weddings, especially the state-
>>recognized kind in the US.
>
>:-) I've had a couple friends who've actually apologized to me
>for inviting me to their US-state-recognized weddings because "I
>know how you feel about them."
How do you know that a marriage is state-sanctioned (*weddings* never are
in North America) unless the couple goes around flaunting their new
marriage license? I mean, it's not like the state papers are any part of
the ceremony. Tons of people could be having nonlegal weddings and we'd
never know.
Jill Lundquist
In article <6n2v9j$n3...@crash.videotron.ab.ca>,
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>How do you know that a marriage is state-sanctioned (*weddings* never are
>in North America) unless the couple goes around flaunting their new
>marriage license? I mean, it's not like the state papers are any part of
>the ceremony. Tons of people could be having nonlegal weddings and we'd
>never know.
In the jurisdiction where I live, the couple doing those things would
be considered as presenting to themselves to the community as married
and would therefore (if they were of opposite sexes) be married. It
would be a legal marriage whether they had a license or not.
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@cs.colorado.edu
"I mean, I LIKE flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama, but I like TOUGH-MINDED
flake-baggery and fruit-o-rama." -MWB
Dremaer
In article <6n1j9t$t...@news1.infinet.com>, "Rich"
<compg...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
This brings up a question I've been pondering for a long, long time (my
entire adult life) but which has not been discussed directly, that I know
of, since I started reading this group. (You probably all talked it to death
the week before that. *sigh*) This is a perfect audience: diverse,
intelligent, and, most importantly, much too far away for the most part to
throw stones, heat oil, or drive stakes. *grin* I'm going to use a lot of
examples featuring the Catholic Church, as it's the oldest Western Christian
church and therefore has the longest history of illogic, which is also well
known to a large number of people. However, let me say in advance that I
find no church or religion (including mine) less silly than any other church
or religion. Some are less illogical than others, but I pick no favorites.
Here's the thing: you hear a lot about the church, any church, rejecting
gay/lesbian/polyamorous/pro-Choice/Democrat/whatever types, who then have
demonstrations, press conferences, lawsuits, and other complain-ins about
it. Now, I can see their point if their particular problem is one their
church has not contemplated before and some conservative local pastor has
decided to start making policy as he goes. Then you appeal to the proper
religious authorities. But if the Pope or the Council of Bishops or the
Weeping Elvis Statue or whoever has spoken, Vox Dei as it were, to the issue
and there is no appeal, WHY DO THEY KEEP COMPLAINING? At least in America,
nobody FORCES you to belong to a specific church. Join another one.
For those who disagree with their church's teachings but don't want to join
another church you have the honorable precedent, led by Buddha, Luther*,
etc., etc., of having a little non-violent (hopefylly) schism (is there such
a thing as a "schism party?") and starting your OWN church, incorporating
those teachings of your former church which you find valid and rejecting
those which you do not.
*I know that Luther didn't want to start a new church. I'm talking about
results in the real world here.
Now, here's my logic:
A church, at its heart, is a collection of teachings of the Divine, enforced
by ecumenical law and tradition. Those teachings are kept and added to, as
needed, by recognized authorities. In essence, they point to these collected
teachings and say, "This is our Church. Accept them and you are a member of
our faith. Reject them and you are not." Where do people get off trying to
force them to change? Religious freedom is not just about a hundred
persecuted Puritans being allowed to form a new colony in Massachusetts,
American Aborigines being allowed to ingest peyote, or Pagans being allowed
to dance naked in national forests. It's also about a church with a billion
members being allowed to say, "We reject X and require Y. If you practice X
or refuse Y, you may not be a member of our church. Take it or leave it."
And about other people respecting that.
Remember, I already said that I'm talking about issues which have *been*
thoroughly debated and ruled upon by the supreme authority of the church
under discussion. There is no more room for argument. Maybe in four hundred
years a church can go from burning witches to opposing the death penalty for
any reason, but the Pope is not going to write a new encyclical tomorrow
that says, "Whoops, sorry, had a bad connection to the Big Guy the day I
said that contraception and abortion were sins. Go on ahead with your
fornicating." Arguments from those who disagreed over those centuries, and
social change, are what caused the church to change its position. But unless
and until it does, you can argue all you want, you can disagree all you
want, and that's fine. But if you actually practice things which are
rejected by the church, as opposed to being obedient while campaigning for
reform, you must be prepared to take the consequences. To make an analogy,
members of groups who believe that it's okay for children to have sex with
adults are free to discuss it amongst themselves, debate it with others, and
campaign for lowering the age of consent to conception. I wouldn't dream of
stopping them. But the moment they actually do it, against the will of the
community as expressed in the criminal law, off to jail they go. Thus the
difference between moving for reform within a church and rejecting the
teachings of a church while still claiming to belong.
My personal feeling is that this is a form of dishonesty caused by fear.
*buckles on flameproof exosuit* For the most part, these people (the
complainers) are afraid that the church is RIGHT, and that people who reject
the teachings of the church go to Hell, or don't get to go to Heaven, or get
reborn as tomato slugs, or whatever. However, they want to do things that
reject the teachings of the church. Therefore, to avoid the aforementioned
fates-worse-than-death, they must force the church to change its teachings.
To say, in effect, "Well, people who do all those OTHER things we said
weren't allowed are still going to Hell, but we changed our minds about your
particular perversion and it's okay with God now."*
(*When the Catholic Church stopped supporting indulgences did all the people
who bought their way into Heaven suddenly find themselves in Hell? And did
all those Popes who supported the murder of millions lose valuable Pope
Points when the Catholic Church decided that the death penalty was not in
accordance with the Will of God? Just curious.)
To sort of sum up my argument, unruly sheep are stil sheep. Be a sheep, or
be a wolf. It's not logical for people to want the Divine will, as revealed
by a church, reinterpreted to suit their personal predilections. If you're
worried about what God thinks, start your own church, join one that suits
you, or argue for change within your church *while honoring its
requirements.* All else is self-deception.
I've left out a lot of stuff (I've been thinking about this issue for many
years.) I'm sure that there are all sorts of holes in my argument, at least
the part I've laid forth above. (On review, I can see at least one which I
do, in fact, have a plug for.)
---Dremaer
Cutter John's Theory of Temporo-Natal Irrelevance:
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood!"
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/9251/geohome.html
ICQ: 13157470 Nick: Dremaer
Annette M. Stroud
In article <6n2tmq$s5c$1...@news.megsinet.net>,
Dremaer <dre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Here's the thing: you hear a lot about the church, any church, rejecting
>gay/lesbian/polyamorous/pro-Choice/Democrat/whatever types, who then have
>demonstrations, press conferences, lawsuits, and other complain-ins about
>it. Now, I can see their point if their particular problem is one their
>church has not contemplated before and some conservative local pastor has
>decided to start making policy as he goes. Then you appeal to the proper
>religious authorities. But if the Pope or the Council of Bishops or the
>Weeping Elvis Statue or whoever has spoken, Vox Dei as it were, to the issue
>and there is no appeal, WHY DO THEY KEEP COMPLAINING? At least in America,
>nobody FORCES you to belong to a specific church. Join another one.
Why should I let conservative folk take over the church I was born into?
If the issues is close, why should we be the ones to leave? If everything
else resonates with me, why should I not fight with bad, culturally
biased, oft repeated thinking and mistakes?
For most people religion isn't something like a brand of soap. It's a
birthright.
Having said that, I must admit that I have left the Methodist Church
(although I haven't done so formally; I just quit going). It wasn't
moving fast enough. But more to the point, there is an Article of Faith
regarding the Trinity that I just can't buy. (The church's position on
sexuality does not reside in the Articles of Faith, but in the Discipline
-- which is modifiable.)
Annette
B.C. Holmes
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 21:01:49 GMT, r...@cgocable.net (Ryk) wrote:
>We recently faced a similar situation, hoping we would all get
>invitations, but not wanting to get into the situation of upstaging a
>wedding with a coming out. People's nerves are always a little frayed
>around weddings and I would advise against adding to the emotional
>complexity.
When Ldot and I had our wedding, one of my closest friends
asked if it would be okay if she brought her (same-sex) partner to the
reception. Like you, she was afraid that she'd cause stir. Call me
weird, but I thought that stirring up a little trouble with my stuffy
family sounded like a good idea.
My friend brought her partner, who wore the sharpest-looking
men's suit of all the guests there. They later told me that although
nobody was rude to them, they didn't feel comfortable dancing together
afterward -- not the right atmosphere, I guess. :-(
BCing you
----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+--
B.C. Holmes http://www.interlog.com/~bcholmes/
"From childhood's hour I have not been/As others were - I have not
seen/As others saw - I could not bring/My passions from a common
spring."
-- "Alone", E.A. Poe.
piranha
lots of stuff here that i don't want to get into, cause
i don't do anti-catholic argument anymore. so, big snip-
page ahead.
In article <6n2tmq$s5c$1...@news.megsinet.net>,
Dremaer <dre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>Here's the thing: you hear a lot about the church, any church, rejecting
>gay/lesbian/polyamorous/pro-Choice/Democrat/whatever types, who then have
>demonstrations, press conferences, lawsuits, and other complain-ins about
>it. Now, I can see their point if their particular problem is one their
>church has not contemplated before and some conservative local pastor has
>decided to start making policy as he goes. Then you appeal to the proper
>religious authorities.
and of course we (the onlookers) don't know whether any sort
of protest springs from this background, or doesn't. at least
i sure don't when i hear a soundbite on the news.
>But if the Pope or the Council of Bishops or the
>Weeping Elvis Statue or whoever has spoken, Vox Dei as it were, to the issue
>and there is no appeal, WHY DO THEY KEEP COMPLAINING?
the problem is that the pope (and anyone else) does not usu-
ally speak infallibly for god (it's a misconception that the
pope does whenever he says anything). lots of issues _are_
up for interpretation, and maybe the top guy needs some more
convincing, or so people think.
>At least in America,
>nobody FORCES you to belong to a specific church. Join another one.
you don't belong to a church i gather. i don't either. if
we did, we might not be so blase about leaving. people get
attached to a church they've belonged to for years. why
should _they_ leave? (does this remind you of other ethnic
quarrels? it should.)
interestingly enough we had this very argument when, of all
things, a newsgroup became less and less pleasant to hang
out in. the charter hadn't changed, it was just that the
charter wasn't enforceable, and more and more people were
acting "badly". when a split was first suggested, some peo-
ple said "let _them_ go, i've been here since the beginning,
and you're prying this group out of my cold, dead fingers.".
people get attached to their social and spiritual circles
even when such circles are in cyperspace. put them in the
"real" world and watch people get as firmly attached as bar-
nacles.
>For those who disagree with their church's teachings but don't want to join
>another church you have the honorable precedent, led by Buddha, Luther*,
>etc., etc., of having a little non-violent (hopefylly) schism (is there such
>a thing as a "schism party?") and starting your OWN church, incorporating
>those teachings of your former church which you find valid and rejecting
>those which you do not.
yeah, that would be a valid choice. but it might not appear
to be the best course of action. personally i'd do this only
_after_ having tried my damndest to make the old group see
the wisdom of my ways. i see no reason why any group i be-
long to should be static.
oh, i can come up with an obpoly: why not just dump the old
mono partner, because zie's unhappy with you seeing the new
love? why not just move on?
because the old mono partner has a lot to offer, because one
loves zir with all zir warts, and it would hurt to leave zir
behind.
if you started a new church, a lot of the old members would
not come with you. it might be quite painful to just leave,
and worse, to create a schism (because that would be bound
to result in a fair bit of hostility).
>A church, at its heart, is a collection of teachings of the Divine, enforced
>by ecumenical law and tradition. Those teachings are kept and added to, as
>needed, by recognized authorities. In essence, they point to these collected
>teachings and say, "This is our Church. Accept them and you are a member of
>our faith. Reject them and you are not." Where do people get off trying to
>force them to change?
"force"? i reserve that term for guns being pointed at my
head (or for similarly strong means of persuasion). "con-
vinced" is more the term i'd use. and the teachings are in-
deed added to, and have been, for hundreds of years. so it
isn't inconceivable that they might be added to again, yes?
some of those additions haven't come after calm discussion
by some guys dressed in the robes of authority, they've come
because enough people wanted the change.
>Remember, I already said that I'm talking about issues which have *been*
>thoroughly debated and ruled upon by the supreme authority of the church
>under discussion. There is no more room for argument. Maybe in four hundred
>years a church can go from burning witches to opposing the death penalty for
>any reason, but the Pope is not going to write a new encyclical tomorrow
>that says, "Whoops, sorry, had a bad connection to the Big Guy the day I
>said that contraception and abortion were sins. Go on ahead with your
>fornicating."
no, but the next pope might realize that contraception is
a valid choice (i doubt that abortion will ever get to that
point in the catholic church). yes, it takes a long time.
but some people prefer to take the long view, and prefer to
change something they feel belongs to them from the inside.
and maybe it's a viable method to assess the validity of an
argument by its longevity?
Debbie Notkin
>But then, I have my *own* issues about weddings, especially the state-
>recognized kind in the US. And yeah, I've also *officiated* a state-
>recognized wedding.
>(Getcher mixed feelin's here, nice an' fresh, three fer a dollah!)
I've got _that_ t-shirt, front and back. And when you officiate a state-
recognized wedding, at least here in sunny California, you have to sign
a loyalty oath, of the kind that caused so much trouble in the dear departed
McCarthy era. I sat there in the government building thinking, "Do I care
about M. & N. enough to sign something I completely object to so that I can
enable them to do something I have mixed feelings about?"
And then I did it, which speaks to my priorities for friendship over the
forms of officialdom. Somehow, signing something that said I wouldn't
overthrow the U.S. government by force or violence doesn't feel like it
would stop me if the right opportunity came along ...
But I did tell them that I'd foregone assassinating George Bush for them
and they'd better appreciate me. *sigh*
ObPoly: No, they aren't. And I _suspect_ that at least one of them
cheats. And I _think_ I'm still glad I did it. *bigger sigh*
Debbie Notkin
In article <6n148n$6...@excalibur.gooroos.com>,
pir...@gooroos.com (piranha) wrote:
> i've always thought a wedding was an occasion where the
> happy beloveds affirmed their commitment to each other in
> front of their community. ergo, when i get invited to a
> wedding and can make it, i go to participate in that par-
> ticular purpose. the food isn't a consideration for me.
Me too. But sometimes I'm afraid we're in the minority. My favorite story
on this subject is the story of a friend of mine who attended her best
friend's sister's wedding, an extravaganza of photography and videography
rarely equalled. After the wedding, the bride's mother said, "How did you
enjoy the wedding?" and Janet said tentatively, "I guess I thought the
video with the bright lights was a little intrusive."
"Oh," said the mom. "We thought about not doing a video, but then someone
said to me, 'If you don't make a video, then after the wedding, you don't
have anything.'"
Stories like that make me glad that the one time I was feeling depleted
enough to consider getting married to fill (the wrong) void, my partner
said, "You know I'd love to marry you. But I'll be damned if I'm going to
say yes _now_."
Mark A Kille
>gay/lesbian/polyamorous/pro-Choice/Democrat/whatever types, who then have
>demonstrations, press conferences, lawsuits, and other complain-ins about
>it. Now, I can see their point if their particular problem is one their
>church has not contemplated before and some conservative local pastor has
>decided to start making policy as he goes. Then you appeal to the proper
>religious authorities. But if the Pope or the Council of Bishops or the
>Weeping Elvis Statue or whoever has spoken, Vox Dei as it were, to the issue
>and there is no appeal, WHY DO THEY KEEP COMPLAINING? At least in America,
>nobody FORCES you to belong to a specific church. Join another one.
A couple of reasons come to mind.
1. A religion is a cultural as well as a spiritual institution. If you're
raised in a very Catholic community, say, then being told "just go
somewhere else" is a bit like being told to just move to some other
country if you don't like the US. The problem with that being that
you have to leave a sense of community (if not frequently a real
community of people you know and care for) for an unknown place that
may or may not be more accepting, but in any case is full of strangers.
2. This might be the one issue they disagree with--the rest of the doctrine
they're fully behind. What makes more sense from a Catholic point of
view, to go join a bunch of goofball Protestants who don't understand
the true nature of communion, saints, apostolic succession and all
the rest--or stick with the Church and try to get them to come around
on this one issue?
3. If you're a member of a church, presumably you believe in it. You have
a lot invested in it. You care for it. You want to help it, you want it
to be right. Why abandon it? Why not help it to be right?
4. Related to 2 and 3, you might see a real theological and/or
doctrinal support for your position. You're not trying to change
the religion per se, you're trying to move its leaders towards your
interpretation of that religion.
>For those who disagree with their church's teachings but don't want to join
>another church you have the honorable precedent, led by Buddha, Luther*,
>etc., etc., of having a little non-violent (hopefylly) schism (is there such
>a thing as a "schism party?") and starting your OWN church, incorporating
>those teachings of your former church which you find valid and rejecting
>those which you do not.
That can be very difficult. If part of what you find valid is the idea
of ordination, how are you going to manage that if you separate yourself
from the ordinating mechanism? I'm sure there are other doctrinal
barriers (as opposed to psychological etc. barriers) to just up and
starting your own religion.
It's been done, though. A bunch of southern Baptist congregations
separated themselves off from the main Convention. But that movement
had the benfefit of ministers on their side. What does an isolated
layperson or two do?
>A church, at its heart, is a collection of teachings of the Divine, enforced
>by ecumenical law and tradition.
I'd say a church, at its heart, is a collection of _people_ who follow
a collection of teachings...it's a crucial distinction.
>to dance naked in national forests. It's also about a church with a billion
>members being allowed to say, "We reject X and require Y. If you practice X
>or refuse Y, you may not be a member of our church. Take it or leave it."
>And about other people respecting that.
Yes, it should be respected. However, when certain religious institutions
have power outside of the purely spiritual realm--as, say, the Catholic
Church does with its schools and hospitals and whatnot--then I can
sympathize with the efforts of both members and non-members lobbying
those institutions to change for the better, since that's the only way
to affect how the non-spiritual power gets wielded.
>My personal feeling is that this is a form of dishonesty caused by fear.
I would say that it is more a form of divided loyalties brought about
by conflicting deeply-held beliefs, and cannot be reduced to any one
simplistic explanation.
>To sort of sum up my argument, unruly sheep are stil sheep. Be a sheep, or
>be a wolf. It's not logical for people to want the Divine will, as revealed
>by a church, reinterpreted to suit their personal predilections. If you're
>worried about what God thinks, start your own church, join one that suits
>you, or argue for change within your church *while honoring its
>requirements.* All else is self-deception.
I think you have a limited understanding of how religious doctrines
are formed and maintained. It's not nearly as static as you make it out
to be. And I'm not sure why you seem to think there's some kind of
statute of limitations on trying to reform one's religious institution.
It seems to me as if you are trying to apply the logic of someone who's
not particularly religious (I gather from your label of "illogical"
that you aren't, but please correct me if I'm wrong) to the actions
of people who are religious. It's not going to work, I assure you.
--Mark Kille
--
"For relaxation the King breeds dairy cattle, raises improved strains of
rice, plays badminton, and runs a home workshop in which he has assembled
both a sailboat and a working helicopter."
--Thailand Today, c.1968
Mark A Kille
In article <35952b3a...@news.interlog.com>,
B.C. Holmes <bcho...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> When Ldot and I had our wedding, one of my closest friends
>asked if it would be okay if she brought her (same-sex) partner to the
>reception. Like you, she was afraid that she'd cause stir. Call me
>weird, but I thought that stirring up a little trouble with my stuffy
>family sounded like a good idea.
There are days when I seem to make decisions about my wedding based
on one single criterion: will it annoy my fiancee's grandparents? :)
piranha
In article <2MSl1Ape...@slip.net>, Debbie Notkin <ki...@slip.net> wrote:
[attending weddings for the community support of the commitment]
>Me too. But sometimes I'm afraid we're in the minority. My favorite story
>on this subject is the story of a friend of mine who attended her best
>friend's sister's wedding, an extravaganza of photography and videography
>rarely equalled.
*heh*. oh, i can just imagine it. there are several lovely
gardens in and around toronto, and we walk there frequently,
and get to see how "normal" people do the wedding thing. it
does appear indeed to be a major extravaganza, with everyone
being pushed and prodded in the right place to create those
unforgettable keepsakes on video.
i'm often wondering whether anyone will remember to even look
at those keepsakes in the years to come, while i would most
certainly remember the artifice and the boredom that seems to
be writ large on the participants' faces.
>After the wedding, the bride's mother said, "How did you
>enjoy the wedding?" and Janet said tentatively, "I guess I thought the
>video with the bright lights was a little intrusive."
>
>"Oh," said the mom. "We thought about not doing a video, but then someone
>said to me, 'If you don't make a video, then after the wedding, you don't
>have anything.'"
*chortle*. i have some mighty fine memories of my wedding
celebration. many friends were there, a good time was had
by all, and there was no fuss, no strain, just lots of food
(ok, so food _is_ important for bonding ceremonies, *heh*),
and lots of talk and laughter.
but then i also don't consider it the "most important day
of my life". the marriage is vastly more important than
the wedding, and i wanted the wedding celebration to be a
lot like our lives together -- good friends, good food,
good talk, lots of laughter. i didn't really want the day
to be vastly different (and therefore potentially a lot
more stressful), i just wanted it to be a pleasant day, a
day like hopefully many days to come.
>Stories like that make me glad that the one time I was feeling depleted
>enough to consider getting married to fill (the wrong) void, my partner
>said, "You know I'd love to marry you. But I'll be damned if I'm going to
>say yes _now_."
smart. well said, too (the first part being important).
JennieD-O'C
Jill Lundquist <ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>In the jurisdiction where I live, the couple doing those things would
>be considered as presenting to themselves to the community as married
>and would therefore (if they were of opposite sexes) be married. It
>would be a legal marriage whether they had a license or not.
Hmm. Do you know how this works with polyfolk? I "present myself as
married" with two people, but I'm only legally married to one of them.
Since I don't tell anyone which one it is (only the government knows for
sure), how would this sort of law then work for me?
Ryk
On 26 Jun 1998 13:25:06 GMT, jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C)
wrote:
>Jennie, who didn't have a single news crew show up at her wedding; imagine
>that!
Well, we all thought it was news! Even with some of the less poly
touches ;-) dig, dig ;-)
Ryk
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 08:58:42 -0500, "Dremaer" <dre...@geocities.com>
wrote:
> WHY DO THEY KEEP COMPLAINING?
> Arguments from those who disagreed over those centuries, and
>social change, are what caused the church to change its position.
You seem to have answered your own question. Determined resistance,
like a gentle flow of water, can eventually erase what was once
written in stone.
Ryk
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 07:57:02 GMT, gu...@sirius.com (Guy W. Thomas)
wrote:
>(chuckle), Here I am Ryk, I'm eating carrots and lettuce and peas and
>oooooooh asperagus. And ya know what? I'm eating 'em RAW! ;-)
Can I swap you some raw broccoli for some asparagus? My partners
don't much care for it and I hardly ever get any (asparagus, you
perverts ;-) )
Rich
>Dremaer <dre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>At least in America,
>>nobody FORCES you to belong to a specific church. Join another one.
>
> you don't belong to a church i gather. i don't either. if
> we did, we might not be so blase about leaving. people get
> attached to a church they've belonged to for years. why
> should _they_ leave? (does this remind you of other ethnic
> quarrels? it should.)
>
I agree w/ you here piranha. I've belonged to my church for over 3 years
and I've grown quite fond of it. I've made a lot of good friends and felt
good about being there. But, since the pastors and other members of the
congregation found out I'm poly (which they consider adulterous), I no
longer feel comfortable there. I feel horrible about leaving the church,
but I can't continue to grow there anymore wondering what people are
thinking. I know I shouldn't care, but I do. So, I will seek out another
church where I am welcome and where I can practice my beliefs and lifestyle
w/out criticism.
>
>>A church, at its heart, is a collection of teachings of the Divine,
enforced
>>by ecumenical law and tradition. Those teachings are kept and added to, as
>>needed, by recognized authorities. In essence, they point to these
collected
>>teachings and say, "This is our Church. Accept them and you are a member
of
>>our faith. Reject them and you are not." Where do people get off trying to
>>force them to change?
>
> "force"? i reserve that term for guns being pointed at my
> head (or for similarly strong means of persuasion). "con-
> vinced" is more the term i'd use. and the teachings are in-
> deed added to, and have been, for hundreds of years. so it
> isn't inconceivable that they might be added to again, yes?
> some of those additions haven't come after calm discussion
> by some guys dressed in the robes of authority, they've come
> because enough people wanted the change.
>
Because people wanted the change, and many feel that God had directed the
people suggesting the change. There is usually a general feeling that the
deity of choice is guiding the "elders"/authorities in making their
decision. So that is why many succumb and say, "ok, that's the way it is
then!".
Sorry, I don't really think this last part fits too well for this news
group, but I figured I'd throw it in anyway.
Just my $0.02.
Rich
Lyre
jenn...@intranet.org wrote:
>Lyre <lyr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>bea...@world.std.com (bearpaw) wrote:
>
>>>But then, I have my *own* issues about weddings, especially the state-
>>>recognized kind in the US.
>>
>>:-) I've had a couple friends who've actually apologized to me
>>for inviting me to their US-state-recognized weddings because "I
>>know how you feel about them."
>
>How do you know that a marriage is state-sanctioned (*weddings* never are
>in North America) unless the couple goes around flaunting their new
>marriage license? I mean, it's not like the state papers are any part of
>the ceremony. Tons of people could be having nonlegal weddings and we'd
>never know.
True. I'm assuming they were state-sanctioned because I know
my friends, and because otherwise, they'd have no reason to
apologize to me. It wasn't the wedding they were apologizing
for; it was the marriage-on-a-piece-of-paper.
-Lyre
--
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes.
That way when you criticize them, you'll be a mile away.
Also, you'll have their shoes.
JennieD-O'C
Rich <{nospam}compg...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>I agree w/ you here piranha. I've belonged to my church for over 3 years
>and I've grown quite fond of it. I've made a lot of good friends and felt
>good about being there. But, since the pastors and other members of the
>congregation found out I'm poly (which they consider adulterous), I no
>longer feel comfortable there.
Oh, Rich. :-(
At least they're honest and upfront about it and aren't pretending to be
accepting while waiting for an opportune moment to stab you in the back,
though. You can at least give them that much.
>So, I will seek out another
>church where I am welcome and where I can practice my beliefs and lifestyle
>w/out criticism.
Good luck. This cynic's done with seeking, though.
Jill Lundquist
In article <6n3sbj$rv...@crash.videotron.ab.ca>,
JennieD-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> wrote:
>Jill Lundquist <ji...@alumni.cs.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
>>In the jurisdiction where I live, the couple doing those things would
>>be considered as presenting to themselves to the community as married
>>and would therefore (if they were of opposite sexes) be married. It
>>would be a legal marriage whether they had a license or not.
>
>Hmm. Do you know how this works with polyfolk? I "present myself as
>married" with two people, but I'm only legally married to one of them.
>Since I don't tell anyone which one it is (only the government knows for
>sure), how would this sort of law then work for me?
In my readings about common-law marriage in Colorado, I've never run
into a case where people tried to use this law to create a
polyamorous marriage, which is fairly good reason to believe that it
hasn't been tested. I will go ahead and speculate based on what I do
know:
About 20 years ago, two women declared themselves married under the
law. This caused a great uproar, and the Colorado state legislators
hied themselves off to amend the law to say that the people involved
must be of opposite sexes. In other words, the state has not been
amenable in the past to letting people who would otherwise not be
permitted to marry get married under "loopholes" in this law.
I am pretty sure that bigamy is a crime. I don't know if you would
be liable for prosecution by someone jumping up and claiming that you
had legally married twice under the common-law marriage law. It
sounds like one of those things (like laws against consensual sodomy)
that "nobody" would ever bother with until someone did, at which time
it would cause a lot of misery to the triad involved.
I am every so very much not a lawyer, thank heaven. :-)
GypsyJack
you is:-)]
> Hmm. Do you know how this works with polyfolk? I "present myself as
> married" with two people, but I'm only legally married to one of them.
> Since I don't tell anyone which one it is (only the government knows for
> sure), how would this sort of law then work for me?
Depends on how pissed off the state officials are at you,, since you
*are* presenting yourself as married to *two* folks, you'd be a
bigamist, and ergo, persona non-gratta (but at least you wouldn't be a
<gasp> Homosexual!! <from their twisted legal perspective, since you
haven't *presented* yourself as married to a member of the same sex....
now *that* could be changed(Grin;):)
> ---
> Jennie D-O'C <jenn...@intranet.org> http://home.intranet.org/~jenniedo/
GypsyJack, feeling twisted in a fluffy sorta way:)
--
Email: jvan...@bayarea.net - Home Page:
http://www.bayarea.net/~jvanbree
(only 2 lines!! happy now??:) ICQ: 5014460
GypsyJack
Now, asparagus, all by it's ownself *is* perverted!! long and slick.....
> Ryk
same gj, same location.
astral alice
Dremaer wrote:
>
> Here's the thing: you hear a lot about the church, any church, rejecting
> gay/lesbian/polyamorous/pro-Choice/Democrat/whatever types, who then have
> demonstrations, press conferences, lawsuits, and other complain-ins about
> it. Now, I can see their point if their particular problem is one their
> church has not contemplated before and some conservative local pastor has
> decided to start making policy as he goes. Then you appeal to the proper
> religious authorities. But if the Pope or the Council of Bishops or the
> Weeping Elvis Statue or whoever has spoken, Vox Dei as it were, to the issue
> and there is no appeal, WHY DO THEY KEEP COMPLAINING? At least in America,
> nobody FORCES you to belong to a specific church. Join another one.
>
> For those who disagree with their church's teachings but don't want to join
> another church you have the honorable precedent, led by Buddha, Luther*,
> etc., etc., of having a little non-violent (hopefylly) schism (is there such
> a thing as a "schism party?") and starting your OWN church, incorporating
> those teachings of your former church which you find valid and rejecting
> those which you do not.
>
My biggest problem is that whilst a lot of my relatives are complete
hypocrites and I have no need to defend myself to them, nor to
have anything to do with them, a few people I *do* care about take
an interest in my life. It seems a lot easier for me to go on
pretending that I still have all the same beliefs now that I did
when I was younger, as much because a lot of the people we're
talking about are elderly and I have little contact with them. When
the majority of my communication is in letters, provided I don't
write anything untrue, I don't see any harm in not explaining to
them just how complicated my life is now, in the same way that
I don't tell them about my depression and other problems like that,
and I tone down my dress when I go to see them.
When it is the presence of people of my family who I don't like
and who don't care for me, I resent not being able to be myself,
but when it is people I do like and who do care about me, I feel
that I have to go along with their expectations. What's the point
of rocking the boat? I don't see them often enough for it to matter
how many partners I have or what sex they are.
Anyway, to bring this back to the discussion, the same is true of
religion. I have tried a great number of churches over the years.
For a long time I was a fairly liberal Anglican, then I tried
a couple of others. Just never found what I'm looking for. I often
feel that the God I believe in isn't the same one as the one certain
Christian denominations go for. I remember a quote on here a few
weeks back where someone's mum said to Christian fundamentalists
that they were actually Devil-worshippers because their idea of
God was so cruel and hard. I fully agree with that. I believe that
how you behave towards other people is more important than how
many times you go to church.
Recently, I've thought about joining the Quakers, or at least
attending a few of their meetings. From discussions on the uk-poly
list, it appears that they are very accepting of all "normal"
alternative sexualities ("normal alternative" - an oxymoron if ever
I heard one - you know what I mean though - gay, bi & poly-type
stuff). The truth is, I pray at night and I know what I believe
in, and at the moment I am too busy to be involved with a formal
worshipping group. I also thought about wiccan, but it seems to be
very much an American thing - I'm not even sure how to go about
finding someone to conduct a handfasting in the UK - and again, I
don't really feel the need for it.
My objections about the views of churches do not stem from my need
to be a member of one. They stem from the fact that by promoting
such beliefs amongst their worshippers, they are actively encouraging
hate towards a particular section of the community ("God loves
homosexuals, but He hates homosexual acts" being a prime example).
I know a lot of people from my home town who have never knowingly
had contact with homosexuals, let alone bisexuals, polys or goths,
and they often fall over backwards when I try to explain the way
I live my life. I feel that churches have a certain responsibility
to guide and educate their followers, and if the information they
are providing is less-than-Godly, and invasive of people's freedom,
then it's something that we should speak up about.
My church should teach me that murder is wrong. It should not teach
me that love and expressing my love is wrong.
alice.
--
***********************************************************************
* astral alice: bi, poly, goth | http://www.darkwave.org.uk/~alice *
* astra on Cut | telnet://cut.meep.org:4040 *
* ------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* "Love belongs to Desire, and Desire is always cruel." - The Sandman *
***********************************************************************
JennieD-O'C
Debbie Notkin <ki...@slip.net> wrote:
>"Oh," said the mom. "We thought about not doing a video, but then someone
>said to me, 'If you don't make a video, then after the wedding, you don't
>have anything.'"
<snort> I love weddings, myself -- legal or non-legal, big or small. But
only as long as they're about throwing a really cool party that's all
about celebrating the particular relationship in question. Not about
putting on a show for the neighbo(u)rs.
Louise
r...@cgocable.net (Ryk) wrote:
>Can I swap you some raw broccoli for some asparagus? My partners
>don't much care for it and I hardly ever get any (asparagus, you
>perverts ;-) )
Hey! Did I hear someone casting aspersions on my taste?
Louise,
the partner who loves asparagus, and has now figured out why we
haven't had any this spring ...
* Louise lou...@cyberus.ca *
* "Faith ... manages." *
Louise
jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C) wrote:
>How do you know that a marriage is state-sanctioned (*weddings* never are
>in North America) unless the couple goes around flaunting their new
>marriage license? I mean, it's not like the state papers are any part of
>the ceremony. Tons of people could be having nonlegal weddings and we'd
>never know.
Hmmm. Have you been to any weddings in Canada yet? Traditionally, in
Ontario, the wedding ceremony includes a part where the participants
and their witnesses sign a bunch of papers. That is referred to as
the "Signing of the [church] Register", but I believe that one set of
signatures is on a form submitted to the provincial government.
Louise,
just back from a family wedding ...
Dremaer
I've read many replies to my original message and found a wide variety of
viewpoints and interesting arguments.
However, I must be candid and say that it was a huge mistake for me to post
that message. I had had a very bad day and I was, in fact, venting, although
even when I'm venting I remain civil, which can make it hard to tell. Rest
assured that I know a great deal more about both the history of religions
and the practices of most modern ones than that message conveys.
I have decided that it is not possible for me to carry on religious debate
with others, not because I can't be objective about it due to my own
religious beliefs (I am very religious: however, my religion is a religion
of one and I don't care to expound on it) but because I cannot take anyone
who can support most mainstream religions seriously. There is, quite
frankly, too much blood on their hands. That's not Jesus's fault, or
Moses's, or Mohammed's. It's the fault of the people who came after. But
built into every line is all that poison waiting to spew forth again. It's
happening right now in my country (America) and around the world and I quite
seriously believe that if we don't kill ourselves off with industrial waste
first that this is what will kill us all in the end.
I'm doing it again. I apologize. The point of this message is that I read
your replies, appreciated the thought that went into them, and offer that we
will just have to agree to disagree. Thank you.
Karl Allen
In article <6n1j9t$t...@news1.infinet.com> "Rich" writes:
>Well, I wish I could be open. I belong to a United Methodist church. The
>pastors know about it, but can't condone it, and there are tons of
>parishoners who really have a problem with it. I think most of it is
>ignorance.
Ignorance of what - the actual dynamics of your relationship? Or are you
suggesting that they don't understand their religion? I'm a Methodist
myself, and (obviously) supportive of poly folks, but from what I've read
of the bible there are large chunks of it that do seem to encourage
monogamy. Many are from the letters of Paul, who I'm not a big fan of, but
it seems to me that Christians who place a lot of weight on what's in
the bible could come up with some cogent arguments as to why polyamory
is against God's rules. I would disagree with their arguments, but
it'd be a disagreement stemming from differing interpretations rather than
one of enlightenment vs. ignorance.
>Oh well, guess I get to keep it to myself there too.
Either that or be thought of as "the Sinner". :-)
I remain throwing no stones,
K
JennieD-O'C
Dremaer <dre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I cannot take anyone
>who can support most mainstream religions seriously. There is, quite
>frankly, too much blood on their hands.
This is extremely offensive, especially to someone who supports a
mainstream religion *and* embraces non-violence. Is there "blood on
*your* hands" because you're an American? Because you're a man? Should I
not "take you seriously" because you've chosen to remain an American and a
man?
JennieD-O'C
Louise <lou...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>Hmmm. Have you been to any weddings in Canada yet? Traditionally, in
>Ontario, the wedding ceremony includes a part where the participants
>and their witnesses sign a bunch of papers.
As an actual part of the traditional *ceremony*? You're right, this is
news to me.
Diablo Cat
On 28 Jun 1998 21:40:02 GMT, jenn...@kira.intranet.org (JennieD-O'C)
wrote:
>Debbie Notkin <ki...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>>"Oh," said the mom. "We thought about not doing a video, but then someone
>>said to me, 'If you don't make a video, then after the wedding, you don't
>>have anything.'"
> Not about
>putting on a show for the neighbo(u)rs.
I like weddings, when I know the people, etc... They're fun. They're
sort of reenergizing in a way (even if I do put my foot in my mouth by
telling a woman that I would dance with her in an attempt to get her
shy somewhat jealous husband out on the dance floor with her, and she
accepts. Yes, I did dance with her, and as near as I could tell her
husband didn't seem to mind...).
Although being in the wedding is a real energy drain..
When my wife and I got married, we both said that we did not want a
video camera there. We had a good photographer, have some wonderful
pictures, as well as some wonderful memories. I didn't want the
memories shattered by the truth of a video tape :-)
But, that was nearly 10 years ago, and I doubt the video tape woudl
have survived anyway ;-)
brian
--
"It's the Internet, It's like the Pony Express, with little
tiny ponies running through the wires." Zoe Woodbine
http://alar.scruz.predictive.com