NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/polyamor/1872

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.polyamory:1872 soc.singles:31622 alt.pagan:13239 misc.kids:29018
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!inews.Intel.COM!dagwood!vnoronha
From: [e-mail] (Valerie Noronha)
Newsgroups: alt.polyamory,soc.singles,alt.pagan,misc.kids
Subject: Re: raising children
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:19:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Valerie Noronha)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Lines: 46
Nntp-Posting-Host: dagwood


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Reid Kneeland) writes:
|>
|> What about people who don't have the time or money to take these
|> "approved" courses?  They can't get married?  And "approved" by whom?
|> What will be the "correct" curriculum?  Who gets to decide what a
|> "correct" relationship is?  What "correct" parenting is?  I suggest
|> that these are best decided by the people involved, and not the
|> government.  You know, freedom, that silly old concept?

I agree with Reid's point concerning the problems of making marriage courses
manditory.  I think a *course* is not quite the correct term.  It implies
the handing down of instruction by *experts* and a pass/fail if you don't
meet someone else's guidelines when the only real pass/fail is between the
husband and wife.  I think we can all think of some couples who get along
great but whoses marital/house rules we find completely unacceptable for us.
Just think of some of the recent disputes on the net.

Premarital *preparation* on the other hand can be extremely beneficial.  In
my church (R.C.) we had the option to take either a discussion series or
attend an Engaged Encounter weekend.  During the weekend, several different
topics were presented to us, basically ranging from sharing who we are as
individuals, our relationships with others (family, friends, church, etc.),
and our relationship as a couple.  Older married couples volunteered to share
their stories and then we were given a period where we would all separate
and write in a journal (either responding to one of a series of discussion
questions or picking a related topic we wished to explore).  After this
we would exchange our journal with our fiance/e and discuss privately what
we had written (just the two of us).  The format of writing separately was
so that each person had an opportuntity to think it out on his/her own
without tailoring the response to what we thought the other person might
want to hear of just agreeing so as not to spark disagreement.  This allows
the more reticent person to also express his/her views and the poor listener
a chance to read instead of talk.

The focus was on the couple and creating an environment where the couple
would discuss important issues relating to that relationship.  The facilitators
did not participate in the couple's discussions at all, but were available
if a couple should want an outside opinion on a thorny issue.  No outsider,
not the priest who later married us or anyone, ever knew what we had discussed
or even if we used that time to explore deeper into our dreams, goals, and
inner selves.  They just required us to attend.  As in most things, what we
got out of it was what we put into it.

Valerie Noronha