"Poly Activists Are Seen as Undermining the Fight for Same-sex Marriage"

The slippery slope is real but please, according to the Unitarian Universalists Association, people just need to shut the hell up about it:

The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go. Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the folks who want a faith community without too many rules. It is perhaps no surprise that the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest-growing denominations in the country, ballooning 15 percent over the past decade, when other established churches were shrinking. Politically progressive to its core, it draws from the pool of people who might otherwise be “nones” – unaffiliated with any church at all.

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

Later in the piece, there's this:

Once you legitimize same-sex marriage, sociologist Peter Berger wrote on his blog in 2011, “you open the door to any number of other alternatives to marriage as a union of one man and one woman: polygamous (an interesting question for Muslims in Germany and dissident Mormons in Arizona), polyandrous, polygenerational – perhaps polyspecies?”

Not long ago on Facebook, someone was quoting Rob Bell, the hip, cool, evangelical, ex-Pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan.  Mr. Bell was purported to have said:

"I am for marriage.  I am for fidelity.  I am for love, whether it's a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man"

To which I responded:

What about a man and two or three women? A women and two or three men? As long as they're 'faithful', who are we to judge? What about a brother and a sister? An Uncle and a niece? An Aunt and a nephew? What about a man and his dog? Awoman and her cat? If we're going to redefine marriage, then where do we stop, and why, as to new definition? 

Seems to me that people need to think through this issue... not emote through it...

Emoting through gay marriage and its consequences will have serious repercussions.

I'd like my fellow conservatives who are emoting to instead think about what they're supporting.

Please.