user6307: This question was closed as opinion based: Is monogamy a human innate behaviour?
I'll bring up the two reasons I've encountered so far. If the authors want to elaborate or explain why my objection is wrong (or better yet vote to re-open the question), that would be appreciated.

1:

I voted to close this because of these two words: "by nature". Neither the question nor the answers define what on earth is "by nature". While OP or someone else don't do it, this question must remain closed.

To which I replied (with grammar fixed):

I don't think questions should be closed because we don't understand the meaning of two words that are well defined in the dictionary, especially when every word thereafter makes the distinction being made abundantly obvious. Furthermore, the classification of primates based on mating behaviour is a scientific endeavour, not something mired in opinion.


2:

...I don't think this question is really answerable, at least in its current form, except for some non-answer where you state that monogamous and non-monogamous relationships exist therefore yes, humans are by nature monogamous and non-monogamous because there they are, in the nature of human society, forming both types.
You first have to litigate "what is nature?"/"what is natural?" and that is wholly off-topic.


The OP has since edited the question to remove the word "natural". In case I was wrong (hard to imagine such a world) and the question is not "abundantly obvious", it is asking whether monogamy is the result of our complex and relatively modern society or if it evolved pre-civilization. The evolution of monogamy in humans has been the subject of many peer-reviewed articles (examples: one, two, three) and thus I don't understand why this question was closed as opinion based.

user9943: I think this is a viable question. The issue is that the subject shows a large overlap with Anthropology. Problem - there is no Anthropology stack. Over at CogSci we encounter the same sort of questions that are, in essence, Anthropological questions. Hence I do understand pob close-votes from the community, but personally, I tend to leave this sort of question open, simply because

There is a huge overlap with Bio (reproductive behavior, evolution);
There is no Anthropology stack.

The problem with the question as of now is that there are monogamous and polygamous societies so nurture is definitely involved, as they tend to be geographically segregated. In turn, the question premise is a bit thinly researched and it would be best to shave of the Anthropology-side-of-things and narrow it down to more of a Bio question. For example, I would say a question like: 'Polygamy is better for individual fitness [explained in question body], but is it better for a species as a whole, since evolution is species-driven [explained in question proper]?' may be better1.
1May be better - I'm not an evolutionary Biologist, I'm not proposing a specific edit, I'm just giving an example of how it may be more Bio-focussed 

6307: <p>This question was closed as opinion based: <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/62532/is-monogamy-a-human-innate-behaviour">Is monogamy a human innate behaviour?</a></p>
<p>I'll bring up the two reasons I've encountered so far. If the authors want to elaborate or explain why my objection is wrong (or better yet vote to re-open the question), that would be appreciated.</p>
<hr />
<p>1:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I voted to close this because of these two words: &quot;by nature&quot;. Neither the question nor the answers define what on earth is &quot;by nature&quot;. While OP or someone else don't do it, this question must remain closed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To which I replied (with grammar fixed):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don't think questions should be closed because we don't understand the meaning of two words that are <a href="https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/by-nature" rel="nofollow noreferrer">well defined in the dictionary</a>, especially when every word thereafter makes the distinction being made abundantly obvious. Furthermore, the <a href="http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">classification of primates based on mating behaviour</a> is a scientific endeavour, not something mired in opinion.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>2:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>...I don't think this question is really answerable, at least in its current form, except for some non-answer where you state that monogamous and non-monogamous relationships exist therefore yes, humans are by nature monogamous and non-monogamous because there they are, in the nature of human society, forming both types.</p>
<p>You first have to litigate &quot;what is nature?&quot;/&quot;what is natural?&quot; and that is wholly off-topic.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<p>The OP has since edited the question to remove the word &quot;natural&quot;. In case I was wrong (hard to imagine such a world) and the question is not &quot;abundantly obvious&quot;, it is asking whether monogamy is the result of our complex and relatively modern society or if it evolved pre-civilization. The evolution of monogamy in humans has been the subject of many peer-reviewed articles (examples: <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140175079900010" rel="nofollow noreferrer">one</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/srep32472" rel="nofollow noreferrer">two</a>, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/526" rel="nofollow noreferrer">three</a>) and thus I don't understand why this question was closed as opinion based.</p>
 9943: <p>I think this is a viable question. The issue is that the subject shows a large <strong>overlap with Anthropology</strong>. Problem - <strong>there is no Anthropology stack</strong>. Over at CogSci we encounter the same sort of questions that are, in essence, Anthropological questions. Hence <strong>I do understand pob close-votes</strong> from the community, but <strong>personally, I tend to leave this sort of question open</strong>, simply because</p>

<ol>
<li>There is a huge overlap with Bio (reproductive behavior, evolution);</li>
<li>There is no Anthropology stack.</li>
</ol>

<p>The problem with the question as of now is that there are monogamous and polygamous societies so nurture is definitely involved, as they tend to be geographically segregated. In turn, the question premise is a bit thinly researched and it would be best to shave of the Anthropology-side-of-things and narrow it down to more of a Bio question. For example, I would say a question like: '<em>Polygamy is better for individual fitness [explained in question body], but is it better for a species as a whole, since evolution is species-driven [explained in question proper]?</em>' <strong><em>may</em></strong> be better<sup>1</sup>.</p>

<p><sub><sup>1</sup><strong><em>May</em></strong> be better - I'm <em>not</em> an evolutionary Biologist, I'm <strong><em>not</em></strong> proposing a <em>specific</em> edit, I'm just giving <strong><em>an</em></strong> example of how it may be more Bio-focussed</sub>      </p>
