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

While he did provide definitions (morality, lust, and avarice), he also used two of those definitions (lust and avarice) to begin argumentation. However, it is no issue, aside from noting a slight lack of ethics, probably due more to a misunderstanding. Moving on. P1: My opposing definition of morality, and critique of using Christianity as a basis for morality While my opponent did we to capitalize on my mistake of not defining morality, he chose a rather poor definition, and I would like to suggest a better alternative. As such, I believe that the definition of 'virtuous conduct' (thefreedictionary. com) will be the most elegant and pertinent to the debate, as it both allows my opponent to continue using bible as his evidence, and allows both of us to make full use of all sources. I do this, primarily, because I believe that the bible is a poor choice of document used to define morality. My opponents insistence that morality doesn't exist without religion has been debated much, but the fact remains that atheists, despite not having a religion, have morality. In fact, by saying that without religion, there would be no morality directly implies my opponent, without his religion, would also have no moral code or morality. Obviously, in a debate of morality, saying that you have no morality without a specific book is worrying, as it calls into question my opponents ability to correctly and aptly judge morality. I will not delve much deeper into what this says about my opponent, however, as I do not want to strawman him, and would like him to correct my misconceptions, as I am sure that I am misinterpreting something. As well as there being other religious texts and other religious morals outside the bible, there are also non-religious morals that directly disprove my opponents definition of morality as only existing in not only religion, but his religion. Furthermore, my opponents choice of the seven sins is rather poor, as there are several lists of seven deadly sins, or abominations, in the bible. One such list, coming from Proverb 6:16-19 is as follows. 1. A proud look 2. A lying tongue 3. Hands that shed innocent blood 4. A heart that devises wicked plots 5. Feet that are swift to run into mischief 6. A deceitful witness that uttereth lies 7. Him that soweth discord among brethren Which, unless I am mistaken, none of these deadly sins, which are also in the bible, would cover all instances of polyamory. P2: Polyamory is not necessarily lustful This point will be quick, merely pointing out that, by nature, nothing about polyamory is specifically lustful. One may enter a polyamorous relationship merely for romantic involvement and, even if it is for lust, it is not necessarily more so than that of a monoamorous person. But, the possibility of, say, an asexual -- with no lust -- entering into a polyamorous relationship disproves my opponents thoughts that polyamory is, inherently, lustful. P3: Polyamory is not necessarily avaricious Firstly, I should note that in your definiton of avarice, you mention that polyamory, in some fashion, exists to 'have different asses to stick your dick into'. I would like to point out that polyamorous females exist. I have pointed out why the bible makes for a ppoor definition point, and avarice is only inherently bad according to biblical standards. However, even if we use biblical standards, polyamory is not inherently avarice. Polyamory, as I have already stated, need not be lustful. But, as well, polyamory need not be done with the intent of greed. Again, an asexual may end up in a polyamorous relationship. Not only that, but he or she may have done so merely to please his or her two suitors, and because he or she wouldn't want to have to hurt one of their feelings (I'm not turning this into an emotional debate, merely proposing a theoretical). Is this avarice, if he or she is not in a polyamorous relationship for themselves, but for others? To me, it sounds more like altruism, or at least attempted altruism. P4: Without biblical text, there is no harm in being lustful or avaricious anyway In order for your biblical argument to be sound, you must also prove why it is moral, as I have already stated. It relies on the premises that: 1. There is a (Christian) God. 2. God cares about our morality. 3. That either lust or avarice are immoral in His eyes. 4. All polyamorous relationships are either lustful or avaricious. Conclusion: With or without biblical sources (which shouldn't be used), polyamory is not inherently immoral My opponent must prove how, non-religiously, polyamory is morally wrong in all instances.