Punished UMN wrote:Cisairse wrote:
I generally take opposition from reactionaries as a sign that I am doing something right.
The views of religion are completely meaningless to me. You might as well have told me that polyamory is bad because a rock you found on the sidewalk was etched with words that told you so.
Like what?
UMN's bit about social influence becoming concentrated was somewhat compelling, but becomes less so when you realize that the alternative is to admit that some people should be forced to marry people whom they would not choose to marry in a free society, and I react to that idea with great animosity.
My response to that is that social scarcity limits freedom necessarily, of course, but economic scarcity limits it far more, and in a society in which polyamory is legal (and not simply decriminalized), economic scarcity can become a far greater tool of coercion than social scarcity (i.e. smaller number of desirable partners) could ever be. What is more free? Settling for a partner you don't want to marry in order to not be alone, or marrying someone with a higher economic station because otherwise you could never pay off your debts? Neither are without some level of intrinsic coercion, but one is less coercive than the other.
This really seems like a false equivalency to me, though. There's nothing stopping someone from cohabitating with a wealthy married person in order to reap economic benefits right now. Why would changing the legal status matter?