Why Three Men Can’t Marry Each Other

Dr. Michael L. Brown
Dr. Michael L. Brown

If “love is love” and “everyone should have the right to marry the one they love,” then why can’t any number of people come together in “marriage”?

On Valentine’s Day, three men in Thailand were “married,” and immediately, they became an Internet sensation.

As reported on GayStarNews.com, when Joke, Bell, and Art posted their “wedding” pictures online, “the internet went crazy,” with one Facebook post receiving 50,000 Likes and more than 1,000 comments.

Why not? After all, “love is love,” right? How can any gay activist object? As Art commented on Facebook, “Love occurs unconditionally and is not limited to only two people. Love brings peace to the world.”

For years I’ve been talking about our ongoing descent into sexual anarchy, also warning that the moment you redefine marriage, you render it meaningless.

The events in Thailand simply confirm what we’ve been saying all this time: If marriage is no longer the union of one man and one woman, then it can be anything: Two men, two women, three men, three women, or an almost infinite number of other possibilities.

Why not?

Last year we heard about a lesbian threesome that got “married”; we’ve heard about people “marrying” themselves; we’ve heard about people “marrying” animals and inanimate objects. Others encourage “open marriage” or being “monogamish,” while still others advocate “polyamory” or the “swinger” lifestyle.

Why not?

If “love is love,” what’s wrong with any of these relationships if they’re all based on “love”?

Wasn’t this the very message President Obama tweeted out when the Supreme Court overturned DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in 2012, namely, “Love is love”?

For years, gay activists have had no answer for a simple question: If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, why does it require two people? Why not just one? Or why not three or more?

If a gay activist says, “But marriage is the loving, long-term commitment of two people,” the answer is simple: “Says who? That’s just your new definition. Where you did get the idea it was two people if not from its historic, natural meaning?”

And so, if I’m “bigoted” because I don’t recognize same-sex “marriage,” then gay activists (and their allies) are just as “bigoted” if they don’t recognize three men (or women) “marrying.”

G. K. Chesterton once said, “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

Click here to read more.

SOURCE: The Christian Post
Michael Brown