Opinion of the "Polyamorous community"

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Nothing wrong with it. Why do people hate it?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I wouldn't be surprised if some prudes also think that things like fetishes are "deviant behavior that destroys the fabric of society." Seriously, who cares what other people do in bed if no one is getting hurt?

Obviously, deviance does not "destroy" society; its occurrence and our subsequent condemnation of it allows us to draw lines by which others may live. Read your Durkheim.

Pointless lines drawn for BS reasons(deviation from the norm doesn't magically make something morally wrong).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's a lot of merit to this, in that it's evident from this and other threads that liberals, at least on this forum, literally can't comprehend why non-liberals disagree with them, whereas conservatives (or, in my case, socialists with what Haidt would classify as conservative moral foundations) have at least some capacity to understand where the forum's strong and in many respects admirable social liberal contingent is coming from.

I don't particularly wish to discuss this further.

You're right. The reasons some people consider polyamory morally wrong are bizarre and alien to me. However, someone considering wearing orange shirts morally wrong would be bizarre in the same way. Not understanding the other side's point of view does not necessarily make one wrong.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It amazes me that anyone could think that what people like BRTD's girlfriend apparently believe is more harmful than the absurd romantic ideals that most of us were raised to hold that have contributed to countless abusive relationships, suicides, physical violence, mental health problems, and other forms of human suffering.

I think that anyone who wants to take polyamorists to task convincingly needs to explain what kind of alternative they believe more thoroughly, and defend why it is the single best way to live, rather than just expounding on why polyamory is bad.

What is that makes being married to and sexually monogamous with a single person for life special when it's not clear that it's less harmful than the alternative? It's pretty obvious that stable families are a good setting in which can children can grow to adulthood, but what is it that makes marriage more than that?

As I said before, I don't want to assert as a fact that monogamy is the only True and Pure form of love. I freely admit there are things I simply don't know.

What I do know is that love, in any reasonable definition of it, is something fundamental to human happiness and moral growth. While I don't believe that any single act of casual sex is inherently immoral, I do believe that casual sex as a lifestyle is degrading because it leads people to lose sight of love. If that makes me a prude, I'll gladly accept the label.

Now, you'll have to explain me how exactly "romantic ideals" are responsible for any of the things you describe, because to me they're all the product of human instincts that are the opposite of love.

Love and sex are different things. Having casual sex with lots of people does not diminish your love for the select few you care deeply about.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Love and sex are different things.

True but (in this sense) not a good thing.

How is that "not a good thing". It's a simple fact.