Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

Do you have any idea what a source is? Because finding some sources to back up your arguments would be nice, and would lend plenty of credence to your argument. All it take is three seconds on Google to find someone who is like-minded, and you have a source. Even if it is the freaking KKK its a better source than nothing. The fact that you think that a lack of sources makes an argument somehow better is one of the single most naive things that I have heard thus far on this site. Scientific and empirical evidence will always trump anecdotal and verbal insistence. You can say the sun is purple but, without any sources, the person that has demonstrable evidence that the sun is not, in fact, purple would win. Also, as far as debate rules go: 1. We agreed to no such rules on definition, nor whether or not they could be debated which, in real debates, they can be. 2. If your was the case, I could've posted my opening argument with the definitions of morally wrong being 'my own, and no one but my own's, moral opinion.' and instantly won the debate. Obviously, even in real debates, a definition can be debated if it is a critical point of one or both arguments. Such as the definition of morality. Which brings me to. R1: It is the moral standard used, not the origin of morality, that matters I find it very strange that you insist that in order to debate this topic, we must first discover the origin of morality. That is ridiculous, and completely off topic. You seem to have confused my arguments regarding morality as relating to the origin of it, when I was merely trying to disprove your use of morality as a credible one. When a definition is not credible, it can be changed mid-debate, specially if it is absolutely vital. But, again, i am digressing. I am quickly going to point out that, while the origin of morality is not needed in this debate (save to disprove poor moral systems), the actual system we use is. Because I have disproved, adequately, your definition regarding religion, I have proposed what I believe to be a fair system that gives both of us grounds to argue. This system, as I have mentioned before, is Utilitarianism[1], and given the broadness of our issue, and the rational nature of Utilitarianism, I believe it to be in our best interest to use this. Also, in regards to your examples of murderers, it should be pointed out that Utilitarianism takes into account all participants, and since the one being murdered would lose more 'happiness' than the murderer would gain, murder is still morally wrong. It is far more universal than you have disgustingly straw-manned it to be. I am not going to recount it word for word, but I will provide a source for you to be able to review it and, hopefully, agree that it is the better definition for this debate. In case you don't understand sources, it's the first one. R2: Morals, in this circumstance, do depend on happiness Because you seem to not believe in sources, I am going to assume you will not read the one I provided on Utilitarianism. So, I will describe it in very simple terms, and why morality, in this definition, does come from happiness. Utilitarianism has two definitions within it. Happiness, meaning an increase in pleasure and so on, and unhappiness, meaning a decrease in pleasure, or pain, or life. Utilitarianism, therefor, relies on whatever gives the highest net 'happiness' or good, and results in the smallest net 'unhapiness' or bad. For example, murder, overall, decreases happiness for the one being murdered more than it increases the murderers happiness. Moving on... R3: Given this, polyamory is moral or, at least, not immoral Given this logic, the people in a willing polyamorous relationship are happier. They have multiple companions, which makes them happy. They are committed, which has been shown to make people happier/ have more pleasure, admittedly through sex[2][3]. And, there is next to no happiness generated, save from some possible jealousy, which would not trump the happiness gained. Conclusion Because polyamory, in willing relationships, increases net happiness and decreases net unhappiness, it must be morally right. 1. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca... 2. http://www.emandlo.com... 3. http://www.thefrisky.com...