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

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge and accept my opponent's statement in apology. Even the best debaters in the world sometimes make mistakes, and I'm glad you admitted it. No fault. Anyway... Not all morality emanates from the bible I would argue that, rather than morality emanating from the bible, the bible was created (or, at least written in such a way) as to promote what people back then considered moral. In other words, morality came before the writing of the bible, and the bible, as well as being a spiritual book, was also written to give people advice on how to live. One instance of this is when God commanded that people should rotate crops, a different one every year, with every fourth year carrying no crops (Leviticus 19:23-26). This was done not because God actually commanded it, but because the Jewish people wanted to be able to spread the knowledge about crop growth that they had discovered, and knew that the Bible had influence to get people to follow it. This prove that at least some (if not all) morality and advice in the bible came before the bible, and was then put in. In fact, we continuously see examples of morality existing in cultures without religion, including many tribal cultures were atheistic for all of their existence[1][2]. There are even more tribal cultures that, while having religion, did not derive their morals from those religions, notable examples including many Native American and African tribes. Furthermore, there are multiple passages in the bible condemning eating shellfish, wearing multiple materials, disobeying slave masters, and homosexuality. Yet, in modern society, we do not abide by any of these. How can we use some morals and not others, thus making the bible and inconsistent source for morality at best, and all of its suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt, considering how much is already ignored in it by its adherents. Also, we have seen many examples of morality in non human society. For instance, many species of apes and monkeys (especially bonobos), have demonstrated moral behavior[3][4][5][6]. There is even plenty of obvious anecdotal evidence that show that animals have some sort of morality. Bees are altruistic, and will sacrifice themselves for their hive. Wolfs and dogs will show guilt when they disgrace their pack leader, or do something to upset him. Cats... don't do anything. They are sociopaths. But still, there are plentiful examples that show that animals -- what we came from -- are capable of developing morality free from religion, as well as examples of atheistic tribes that still have morality. Even if all morality emanates from the bible, that does not mean that only biblical moral standards are applicable Even if all morality did come from religious standard which, as I have shown, it does NOT, we still cannot be expected to only use biblical standards for morality simply because we already don't. Even Christians disobey many Christian doctrines, as well as there being conflicting and contradictory information (the other seven sins I listed earlier, the three versions of the ten commandments, old testament and new testament conflicts). Who is to say we use any standards in a book where the standards are switched around and changed so many times throughout. If God is perfect, all knowing, and omnipresent, why couldn't he decide on what the Ten Commandments were? I'm digressing, but still, there are also other religions with different morality (even those that support polyamory such as Islam, Mormonism, and many tribal religions), so why wouldn't we use those, as they are no more or less valid than Christianity. Not to mention that there are many secular moral ideologies, including Kantian ethics, Hedonistic values, and Utilitarianism. I would like to suggest that, given the broadness of the issue, that utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time) should be our moral standard for this debate, not the bible, or any other religious text. Utilitarianism is hard set in logical analysis, and therefore it will behoove us to use it as a guide for morality in deciding morality of polyamory. Polyamory is not morally wrong Because polyamory increases happiness for those willingly in the relationship, decreases happiness for no one save for butt-hurt Christians, can lead to the creation of more life (thus increasing overall happiness), and allows greater freedom within relationships, it is therefore morally right, or at least not morally wrong. 1. http://atheism.about.com... 2. http://www.patheos.com... 3. http://www.newscientist.com... 4. http://www.livescience.com... 5. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu...