Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD. The Pax Romana was an era of relative tranquility in which Rome endured few major civil wars as severe as the perpetual bloodshed of the third century AD, nor serious invasions, or killings, such as those of the Second Punic War three centuries prior Look, I'm just saying that there were a good 200 years between the end of the Pax Romana and the fall of the empire, and Pax Romana was the most laudable and enviable period of that civillisation. Citing the relationship models of that period as an example of being bad for society might be logically inconsistent. I'd also point out that Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Finland - who all rate above the US on the HDI - all have pretty lax attitudes towards monogamy - affairs outside of the marriage are generally look upon as impolite, in the sense that not holding the door for the person behind you is impolite - but as long as family duties are attended - not an issue. Africa's tribal model of polyandrous relationships succeeded in a stable and expanding population for longer then Christianity and while the model has been ascribed some negative fall out factors in the middle east in the modern era - for almost a thousand years it worked pretty well. Through south east asia and the pacific islands - Monogamy has only existed as a concept since the arrival of christian missionaries. Aboriginals a history dating back more then 40,000 years of successful poly-amorous relationships until the arrival of christian missionaries broke the culture. Hell, on a purely genetic level, it's generally better for a breeding stock population to not maintain monogamous relationships - having females of a herd birth from different sires for each pregnancy is actively recommended for maintaining strongest possible blood lines. There's not even a biological argument that favors Monogamy as an ideal. It's at best something that we have evolved socially for the good of our children - and that's a point I'd probably argue about. In terms of bisexuality and homosexuality being a product of 'Experimentation' rather then evolution - that's a very, very, very long argument that comes down to do you believe the gay biologists or the bible belt? Because they're the only people who have done significant studies into the topic and they drastically disagree with each other. Personally I'm on the side of the biologists, because they can make an argument without citing Leviticus. But you're welcome to believe whoever you want. Homosexuality exists in approximately the same percentage of almost every mammal biologists have observed as it does in humans. It exists in amphibians, fish, birds and reptiles. There are dozens of studies showing mirrors for human responses to homosexuality in animal species. Bisexuality occurs almost as widely. That said, note the word product of our evolutionary history. The current best theory for bisexuality or homosexuality is that it's a population regulator and response to overpopulation. But that's one of a few dozen theories that holds slightly more water then the others - but is still a long way from being a proven fact. Sexuality is a product of our evolutionary history and our social influences - I'm using the term product in a mathematical context - you get the end result from the two factors interacting. We are what evolution and society made us. The question is are we evolved enough to over come some of the stupider parts of what those things made us.