AN ARGUMENT FOR POLYAMOROUS MARRIAGE
P1. If two men can marry then there is no principled reason to exclude three men from marrying
P2. Two men can marry
C. Therefore there is no principled reason to exclude three men from marrying
CONSERVATIVE COMMENTARY
From Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, & Ryan T. Anderson:
[I]f you insist as a matter of principle that we should recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, the same principle will require you to accept (and favor legally recognizing) polyamorous—and, as we saw above, nonsexual—relationships as marriages. If you think conjugal marriage laws unjustly discriminate against same-sex relationships, you will have no way of showing why the same is not true of multiple-partner and nonsexual ones.
Girgis, George, Anderson, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defence, (Encounter Books)
A challenge posed by Robert P. George:
[I]dentify a principle, consistent with your view of marriage as sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership (and your rejection of the historical conjugal understanding of marriage as the one-flesh union of husband and wife), to support the marital norms you wish to maintain—exclusivity, fidelity, permanence, a limit of two persons—while jettisoning the norm of sexual complementarity
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/07/13530/