Robert George writes on Polyamory

Sez he:

I’m sharing with you a piece I’ve posted at The American Interest on a subject that I’ve addressed in the past only cursorily. I (I think) that there really is no principled way of resisting the argument for the legal recognition of polyamorous partnerships as marriages, if one abandons the idea of marriage as a conjugal—and therefore necessarily male-female—union. If gender isn’t integral to marriage; then number can’t be integral to it either. A lot of people sense that this is the case, and sometimes allude to it in debates about same-sex marriage. Their interlocutors often simply wave the question away (“no one’s advocating that!”) or accuse them of scare-mongering in the cause of defending discrimination.

If anyone can find flaws in my reasoning (or if friends with whom you share the piece think they’ve found flaws) please let me know. I’ve played devil’s advocate with myself pretty rigorously, and I can’t find any. Of course, that doesn’t mean none are there!

Here’s the link.

I’ve touched on this in the past here, here, and here.