[YUMad]

You talk a lot about evolutionary diversity, but you simply replaced one religious dogma with another.

I agree with your statement about religious orthodoxy, but it's just a part of a larger issue; we have been living in an unnatural, deviant environment for 6+ thousand years, based on agriculture. This Mosuo culture is just another part of that, but you try to use them for your argument anyway.

In a natural environment, there is no 'evolutionary diversity' in the way you try to paint it. Main drivers in human sexual evolution are hidden ovulation and a monthly cycle, we are one of the few rare mammal species that have it. Its purpose is to make monopolization by a male costly, because he doesn't know when the female is fertile. This generally results in serial monogamy - a male and female are together until their child reaches age of around four. The female, being fertile from cca 14 to 30, will generally enter cca 4 pairings of this kind. With high child mortality in hunter-gatherers, that generally results in slightly above replacement rate.

No matter how much you rave about 'evolutionary diversity' and your type of relationship, you are not rediscovering the natural ways. Yours is just as deviant as the forced lifelong monogamy with the woman having 12+ babies, and just as dogmatized.

[wayoutthere]

I place no moral judgments on either, nor do I claim this evolutionary link is certain by any means. Just that both are useful in different contexts, and in the modern world where sexual intercourse isn’t required for procreation, we have the freedom to choose.

[YUMad]

No moral judgements here either, I'm just someone very interested in evolution of human species. I only attacked the 'appeal to Nature' fallacy which is otherwise most commonly used against lgbt people.

[wayoutthere]

The only appeal to nature I make is that humans are incredibly diverse. Monogamy is a default state for some human beings; as is polyamory for others. And there are likely a lot of people in between who would be open to either in the right context.

[ppseafield]

I'd like to see some sources for your statements.

[YUMad]

Which ones exactly? Let me know.

[ppseafield]

This entire section, your explanation of a natural environment:

> In a natural environment, there is no 'evolutionary diversity' in the way you try to paint it. Main drivers in human sexual evolution are hidden ovulation and a monthly cycle, we are one of the few rare mammal species that have it. Its purpose is to make monopolization by a male costly, because he doesn't know when the female is fertile. This generally results in serial monogamy - a male and female are together until their child reaches age of around four. The female, being fertile from cca 14 to 30, will generally enter cca 4 pairings of this kind. With high child mortality in hunter-gatherers, that generally results in slightly above replacement rate.