> Using drugs or having multiple partners might feel good to you individually, but it has only negative externalities on society at large. That’s pretty much th

> Using drugs or having multiple partners might feel good to you individually, but it has only negative externalities on society at large. That’s pretty much the definition of anti-social. Using sweeping terminology to dismiss drugs is problematic. Does your definition of anti-social drugs include legal drugs like alcohol and caffeine, partially illegal drugs like marijuana and psilocybin, etc? In what way is having multiple partners inherently harmful to society? You are stating these things as if they are self-evident truths, but that is far from the case, such sweeping claims need some pretty hefty backing. > Drug use and polyamory are frowned upon across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The prevalence of a social reflex is not sufficient to justify it (see: racism). Setting aside the overly broad definition of "drug use", why would such a default state about polyamory be inherently correct, both through history and into the future? One could speculate that such intuitions are primarily about one's personal notion of right and wrong, and for most folks that includes a deep sense of commitment to their partner. For the monogamist, the very idea that their partner could be participating with other partners is incompatible with their value system, and therefore they would never except that in a partner. And that's perfectly fine. But there are arguably social configurations that are perfectly compatible with polyamory. As long as all parties involved are on board, I see no further social harm unless you place particularly high value on procreation. As it often goes with religious arguments, one need not impose those beliefs on others, nor is the existence of people with other belief systems a problem purely on the basis that they are non-conforming.