[ashleyn]

>I am not saying marriage is a panacea but it seems to be a reasonable compromise to channel human sexuality for the good of society.

Or perhaps "society" shouldn't be so arrogantly entitled to intrude on the consensual relationships I may choose to enter. With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.

[rwcarlsen]

That is an interesting way to think considering that you receive huge benefits from society (in addition to some disbenefits). If everybody lived in a local optimum, the world would probably be a pretty crappy place to live. There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world.

[ashleyn]

>There is no way for everybody to have everything they want. We make compromises that hopefully allow us to live in a more globally optimized world.

Perhaps not but the best we can do is uphold individual liberty and empower individuals to make their own choices (and deal with the consequences). This entails not arrogantly projecting fallacious assumptions codified into law, such as how women "need" men or that homosexuality is a choice.

[rwcarlsen]

Not discussing any of the particular subjects you bring up, but in general most individual/personal things that people think don't affect others have an unfortunate way of actually affecting others.

[padobson]

You make a good point. OP's point more serves as a scalable approach to reproduction and child rearing rather than sexuality. With widespread birth control available, sexuality doesn't have to overlap as much.

[ManFromUranus]

A good comment I read here on HN was to the effect of: the minimum viable unit of humanity is not a single couple (two people), it is actually a village / tribe (more like 150 people).

>With regards to my sexuality, I owe "society" absolutely nothing.

This is incorrect. You actually owe society everything. You don't generate your own electricity. If you are robbed / assaulted you won't prosecute the offenders on your own. You don't feed yourself and on and on. You don't even ensure your own safety, mostly "the herd" accomplishes that for you.

The only reason you can exist at all is because of the thousands and millions of competent caring people around you who you can communicate with because you speak the same language. There are so many details and dependencies that you have and are taking for granted they can't even be enumerated accurately.

Even your health didn't just fall out of the sky, you owe your health to the fact that your parents passed on functioning genes to you, and that the environmental laws ensured you weren't poisoned, on and on and on. You literally DO owe society everything. Yet I would be good money that you only value your society to the extent it enables you to pursue your own desires and vices.

[ashleyn]

Except I justly compensate people for my electricity, food, and clothing. I do not steal it from them. For almost everything I am provided, I agree to pay a set amount to receive a desired service.

It's not "society" I owe anything to, it's the individuals I enter into voluntary contracts with. And "society" has no more right to disrupt the voluntary relationships I enter into any more than another private citizen. To declare my sexuality or relationships are not serving "society" well enough is a criminal infringement of my freedom of association, and no amount of populist religious zealotry will make it permissible or right.

[ManFromUranus]

>Except I justly compensate people for my electricity, food, and clothing. I do not steal it from them.

I didn't imply that you do steal.

Also the money is another manifestation of the society (that you apparently don't owe anything to) since the society enforces the utility and value of the money and that it can be exchanged for anything at all.

The fact that you can negotiate with them in a common currency using a common medium of exchange in a safe place is fully a manifestation of the society you live in.

>It's not "society" I owe anything to, it's the individuals I enter into voluntary contracts with

What if your plumber doesn't honor the contract? What if the electricity doesn't get connected even though you paid your money? I guess you won't complain to anybody about it right?

>To declare my sexuality or relationships are not serving "society" well enough is a criminal infringement of my freedom of association

You received your genes and your health and your welfare from "society" (and society includes your parents) you are free to do as you wish within the rules of your society. That doesn't mean you can't be considered selfish or a bad person.

You can do whatever you want to do largely within our society, but I am just calling you out on your false assertion that you don't owe society anything. Nobody can make you have kids for example, but choosing not to have them (assuming they would come out healthy) is a selfish act because you deprive the future people of the company/help/participation of those individuals you chose not to bring into the world. You benefitted from all the kids other people chose to have (all the people you enter into voluntary contracts with) but choose not to pay back by having your own who will inevitably be of benefit to others in many ways. That's my point. I and society are not compelling you to do anything, but I and also society at large can certainly comment on it.

>and no amount of populist religious zealotry will make it permissible or right.

I don't doubt it.

[secstate]

> I and society are not compelling you to do anything, but I and also society at large can certainly comment on it.

I think this is the root issue here. We have freedom of association, but there should be no expectation that there will be no social commentary when you exercise that freedom.

For my part, I have a theory that polyamory has historically been marginalized except for in fairly small, homogenous cultures, might be due to the fact that when a polyamorus relationship fails there are many more people intimitaly tied to the fall out. In a monogamous relationships there's generally only two people so emotionally invested as to be damaging. Thus, in a community there are more emotionally detatched people available to help move on. All just a theory though.

[ashleyn]

>I think this is the root issue here. We have freedom of association, but there should be no expectation that there will be no social commentary when you exercise that freedom.

Fair enough

[rwcarlsen]

I don't think the things you derive from those voluntary contracts vs from "society" are quite so separable.

[vilmosi]

In the same way, the only things he owes to "society" are fulfillment of those voluntary contracts.