[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.