If 2 men can marry why can't 3 men marry?

If 2 men can marry why can't 3 men marry?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=irXFVjdv84M
youtube.com/watch?v=0VC88P0Fxu4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporus
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

its 1.5 times as gay

Love is love

Penis is penis

SSM people will never answer this question.

They will deflect it, saying it's a slippery slope argument, because they don't want the public to think about the question.

Once you say marriage is a postmodern concept, and it doesnt have to be between 2 different sex people, then it can be between 3 people or more

They fear this truth because they know nobody wants that, secretly they want that, the feminists would love to be part of an alphas harem

I mentioned this to a leftist recently.
Told them it was none of their business what 3 consenting adults did
The look on their face was priceless

...

I see no problem with it honestly.

Why not 5!? Thanks to ((((science))))) gay poly marriage will soon be a thing with 50 different parents.

The slippery slope is made of ice and snow.

this senpai, on the note of senpai, why not incestuous marriage? We already allow cousins, I mean love is love right.

those bags under her eyes are disgusting. is she 80?

fucking f am to senpai

The entire reason imams in Australia didn't publicly push a no vote (though they absolutely did in arabic in the mosques) is because they fully expect to use the yes arguments to push for legal polygamy.
And after that for legal child brides.

Theres no rebuttal for it

They can
1. agree with polygamy, or
2. say its a slippery slope fallacy which is easily dismissed because its not a fallacy if the logic for SSM works for polygamy, or
3. say they disagree with polygamy and that the arguments used to justify SSM can unravel marriage entirely

Shows what happens in a fatherless home

It's a family thing, to bad steve died she is just confused she needs a real man in her life.

>If 2 men can marry why can't 3 men marry?
Thanks user, I'm going to have some fun with this one.

I'm trying to meme this point into the mainstream discussion


Help me pol you're our only hope...

...

this

welp, never going there again

You fucked up, Bindi. You fucked up.

>never going there again
are you sure about that?

>They fear this truth because they know nobody wants that,
THIS THIS THIS

Is why they were so desperate to stop the plebiscite, and why it is important that it passes.

If a precedent is set that changes to the marriage act must be 'the will of the people', the degenerates know that their dream of marrying 4 young boys is shot down, it will never pass. If however there was no plebiscite or it gets voted no, Labor gets in power next election, immediately caves into LGBT demands and now the definition of marriage can be changed at the whim of spineless, corrupt politicians.

Make no mistake, if no won with 40% of the vote, Labour would run the SSM issue next election, win easily and SSM along with all sorts of degeneracy will be legalised in the near future.

The issue of marriage must be an issue that is determined by the public. LGBT degenerates have no power when it is them vs the public. They have all the power when it is them + labor vs everyone else.

What about two women and three men?

Well one, those MEN should be having a wife and a children of their own. Homosexuality is a deviation of the social norms and it hinders society from producing a strong next generation.
Multiple partners does the same but is further damages our society as now three bread winners are now living in hedionism and not providing for any children in a functially traditional home.
Homosexuality is selfish, multiple partners is selfish, and not having children and raising them accordingly is selfish.

I can’t stay mad. She’s such a qt and her dad is a genuine legend.

Is that woman a relative whoes husband died? If not heretical and the third woman should get stoned.

idk why can't 50 men marry?
i mean- i don't care; but insurance companies, social services, tax collectors, census employees care, keeping track of that tangled web would be insane, and we're well past the point where it should even be called "marriage"

Love is love you bigot

I will not let my relationship with my 13 wives and 12 husbands be legislated upon.

Other people should not have a say in my human right to marry the persons I love.

I'm rich and can afford a harem of wives where each one will receive a $250,000 a year stipend for only fucking myself and the other wives or in gigantic orgy's with all of us.
I plan on having 6-8 wives.

So I'll be doing that because 'love is love'. I don't give a fuck about the 7 men who will miss out on a wife because of me. They can get fucked.

Why not five men a parakeet and three Bonobo monkeys, what the fuck...

Why can't people marry to their pets?

If you deeply adore someone, do you really need the be all and end all to be a legally binding contract adfforded to you by the state?

>If 2 men can marry why can't 3 men marry?
That's been their real plan from the start, but it is ignored as a conspiracy theory or "muh slippery slope is a fallacy!*.

youtube.com/watch?v=irXFVjdv84M

so whats wrong with gay marriage?

It's all trending towards the one result the top 20% of men (esp rich men) want: multiple wives.

Since over 50% of women are pretty much fine with being part of an alphas harem (esp a rich alpha) that's what we will get.

Feels good to be top 20% lads! I run a downlow harem already, but being able to do it in the open and rub my many women in the face of beta males will be so satisfying.

Multiple women on my arm will be like constant re-affirming social proof of my Alpha status.
When lesser male look at me I will roar with laughter and encourage my wives to giggle and point.

Its pointless, but so is all marriage at this point. Unless we get rid of no fault divorce, and start treating women like chattel again, may as well treat marriage like the joke it already is

Polyamory will destroy civilization. If it happens on a grand scale, social conservative will finally be vindicated.

she fucked her vote. If it's marked outside of the box it's not counted.

If two people can marry, why can't three?

Marriage is by definition a restricted thing, the question about whether or not to expand these boundries (which the state clearly has a part in considering they've used the institution of marriage in their calculations for taxation and such) doesn't ensure that other boundry expansions will occur, your fallacy is slippery slope, prove it's happened.

Marriage is stupid shit.
But it's just meant to be a celebration of the start of a family or fucking legal shenigans, whatever.

Its not about gay marriage, it's about the social context that will bring with it.
First it's three women getting married, then it's four fathers raising an adopted daughter and so on.

There's no family when there's two men or two women. It's mad gay and they know it.
If I had two dads I would fucking vomit.

'love is love' annon.
You are not a hater or a bigot are you!

Marriage is by definition a restricted thing? By whom? The definition was one man one woman, now that definition is no longer true, we can apply the same untruth to the fact it has 2 participants.

You want it to be one way, but it's everyway

>But it's just meant to be a celebration of the start of a family or fucking legal shenigans, whatever.

source?

When do we get to vote for getting married with objects?

youtube.com/watch?v=0VC88P0Fxu4

>It's all trending towards the one result the top 20% of men (esp rich men) want: multiple wives.
>Multiple women on my arm will be like constant re-affirming social proof of my Alpha status

Ok muhumad, whatever you need to tell yourself. I'm going to take a wild guess and postulate your never having been married. Or in a committed relationship to something other than your hand

>87.5% of white men now marry Asian women
What could go wrong?

How about 3 "men", just live together, aids it up and die.

yes you fucking racist, homophibic, misogynistic bigot

dont be so rude you nigger.

Ha gaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

dont call people gay

you fag

There is no reason why, once we accept same sex marriage, we should restrict marriage to two consenting parties.

The argument of the samesex marriage advocates is that marriage is an institution based on romantic love. So if three men love each other, why can't they get married?

Traditional marriage was a very specific institution. There were three necessary conditions for a union to constitute traditional marriage: conjugality, exclusivity and complimentarity. Conjugality: the marriage is an exchange of rights to each other's body. Husband and wife must offer their body to each other for the purpose of having children. Exclusivity: the spouses must exclusively offer conjugal rights to each other. Marriage can only be between two people to satisfy exclusivity. Complimentarity: the parties to the marriage need to have physically complimentary sexual organs, i.e., be male and female. Two males cannot satisfy complimentarity because they have the same sexual organs. The purpose of complimentarity is not only that it is the mode of sexual reproduction of the human species, but also that male and female are spiritually and psychologically heterogeneous, and as such, the coming together of male and female mediates the more extreme tendencies of the two sexes.

You say we should restrict it to between 2 people but have no valid reason for why.

At one point you say polygamy can't be exclusive, and that's why only 2 people should marry, but it's exclusive to everyone but the 3 married men.

Furthermore you do not get to have the moral authority on how many people can belong to a love. If love is love, then 3 people can love. Your judgment of that is as irrelevant as your judgment against same sex marriage. It's a human right for people who love each other to marry, we all know this now. Love is love.

I don't have a problem with it. why can't three men marry?

I know! It's current year!

love is love, incest marriage next?

what's to stop me marrying men abroad for money and then letting them loose in the country after they attain citizenship?

I forgot to add the fourth condition: life-long. Marriage cannot be a temporary relationship between husband and wife. The spouses promise each other a commitment to each other until one of them dies.

So now that the SSM campaign has changed the definition of marriage so that Complimentarity is not longer a necessary condition of marriage, what is to stop them from throwing Exclusivity out the window also, if, by maintaining the condition of Exclusivity, we are cruelly excluding polyamorous networks from expressing their love for each other under the dignity of matrimony?

The slippery slope fallacy is not true in this case because by accepting SS marriage, you are rejecting philosophical principles which rule out the legitimacy of marriage being between anything other than a man and a woman.

Sage

whats stops you from doing that with women?

>I forgot to add the fourth condition: life-long.

what are divorces?

they don't have any money. you think a Ukrainian bride is going to buy me or something?

Unintended opposite consequences of marriage.

We don't buy cars to crash them, but they happen.

Because Exclusivity means that you give 100% of your romantic love to your spouse. Once more than one partner enters the equation, the lover is dividing this 100% between different individuals. True love cannot be 40% for Harry and 60% for Sally. It is the whole 100% of your adoration and attention given to the one person. As such, true marriage is always between two individuals only.

>sure, once they are sufficient sterilized.

It really should be obvious to anyone who even stops to think about it for a second.

Firstly, it should be obvious from the forms that marriage has taken (and takes in outlier situations, such as mountainous regions where land is scarce and brothers marry the same woman to avoid dividing up their inheritances, or societies like Mormons who value procreation seeing the procreative potential of multiple wives), that it arises from use and not from anything socially constructed.

Men and women complement each other and the sexual act leads to procreation and they are well-equipped following that to care for those children. It has a function. In free societies where we have equal opportunities, "unequal" institutions necessarily follow. The use of the euphemism "equality" here is a way to obscure the origins and purpose of marriage. To make it seem societal and restrictive. Just reduce it to a matter of society telling some people they can't be in love. It's the ultimate example of people in a society "being made to care".

Secondly, civil unions with every benefit of marriage have been offered and declined. Even though they make arguments about not being able to see their partner at the end of life or in prison or whatever, it's clear that it has to be called a "marriage." There's no good argument for why this needs to be. They know they need "marriage" but all the benefits of marriage aren't sufficient enough. It can only be that they want to cheapen what it means to be married.

I honestly never thought of that....

love is love

Of course. They want government out of their bedroom so bad, they need the ability to sign a legally binding contract with the government so the state knows where they stick their dick.

>So now that the SSM campaign has changed the definition of marriage so that Complimentarity is not longer a necessary condition of marriage,

where is that in the definition of marriage?

no means no

>what are divorces?
An abomination.

But you don't get to arbitrarily decide that. There's no objective measurement of how a person can or should love.

If we were able to arbitrarily decide what love and marriage are it would still be between 1 mand 1 woman.

exclusivity isnt actually in the definition of marriage either, so this thread is a moot point.

there were historically marriages with 3(+) partners

Sage

>cum in mum

when will incest become wincest?

LOVE IS LOVE

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Just don't smoke weed before bed instead of that drinking that beer, that's fucking harmful, dumb goy cunt

love is love and pedos are showing us the purest kind of love - the love of children.

Sage
Sage

oh no...

Daily reminder that the only way to solve the issues with marriage is to make it into a private contract that the state has no part in.

>but muh gibs

Love is not a necessary condition for marriage. It is fabulous when a husband and wife love each other and the chief consequence of marriage should be a feeling of loving affection between the spouses, but no, love is not a necessary part of the definition of marriage. A man and woman may marry each other to satisfy certain obligations to their family or to business partners. They do not necessarily need to be in love to fulfil the marriage.

Or make gay marriage a defacto marriage and don't start fucking with straight normal historical cultural biological purposeful marriage.

We already have that.

We don't need to change things to make them worse just because some people are willfully in denial of unintended (or inteneded) consequences

Sage

bumpo in the recto

If marriage is just a matter of love, then why has SSM literally never existed in any culture that wer are aware of and why is marriage (one man and one woman) a common thread across all societies regardless of religion or cultural mores?

You think it's a coincidence?

>and we're well past the point where it should even be called "marriage"
We are already right now, yes.
Two men or two women together is not marriage. They can be together (debatable), but it's not marriage.

Her name sounds like a Harry Potter villain.

love is love, fuck off, stop oppressing love

Aren't you supposed to mark it with an X? This isn't supposed to count, is it?

DONT.LET.YOUR.MEMES.BE.MEMES

>secretly they want that, the feminists would love to be part of an alphas harem
nothing is stopping them from doing it, same like sodomy

when SSM becomes a thing, they can all marry each other for tax benefits while being loyal to their alpha

Or they can just all be single moms and get gibs me dat

I believe there is one counter-example: the Roman Emperor Nero had a mock wedding ceremony in one account with a young boy he was in a pedophilic relationship with.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporus

The normal marriage is pretty retarded atm so I don't see the need to keep it around.

>those saggy tits
And she's only 19. Kek.

So gays can domesticate wayward men

how about a a 56 yr old man and a 10 yr old orphan boy? can I marry my car? how about having sexual relations with a snail?