Hi Dan S de Merengue, nice to have you back.

>>If a man loves two sisters can he marry the two sisters? If not, why not? I often find when I ask this of atheists or others supporting this push to change the marriage laws, I’m usually met with silence. Maybe I’ll get some reasoned argument coming back at me this time.<<

The mistake you made was to ask an atheist. When faced with questions such as this, I prefer to ask "What would Martin Luther say?".

I know, I could just as easily have used the scriptures themselves (Exodus 21:10, for example) but as we all know, Christianity is just the translation of those documents into a lifestyle. And given Martin Luther's reputation as playmaker to the Reformation, I thought he might have something to say on the matter.

Sure enough, it turns out that he does.

In a letter to the Chancellor of Saxony, Gregor Brück, he wrote (presumably in answer to a question along the same lines as yours) as follows:

"Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis" (as reported in John Emerich and Edward Dalberg-Acton's The History of Freedom, p129)

To be fair, he did add "I wouldn't recommend it".

Although, when you think about it, that last bit could equally well have been cynical, worldly-wise advice...

Bigamy is illegal

My question was, according to those who are lobbying for law reform -

If a man loves two sisters can he marry them both? If not, why not?

Kipp says it’s illegal.
I know it is illegal. So is same sex marriage. The issue is why?

Pericles,
Is it a mistake to seek a logical response from an atheist?

Your answer gives the punch line in Latin. I’m sorry, this is not helpful; I don’t know much Latin.

You don't need to, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Your answer gives the punch line in Latin. I’m sorry, this is not helpful; I don’t know much Latin.<<

There's this amazing thing called the internet, that has a feature called "search". All you needed to do was to copy the entire phrase into the search engine - Google is quite popular, I believe - and you would have found the original quotation, in context, and a number of translations.

It goes like this:

"I admit that I do not have the power to forbid a man who wants to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the scriptures"

Luther did add, as I mentioned, that he himself would not recommend it. But that sounds more like he is advocating self-preservation on the part of the male, rather than offering a religious pronouncement.

So it is fair to assume that this prissy-mouthed prohibition by the Church is a fairly recent proscription, probably initiated by envious celibate priests, rather than scripturally supported.

Polygamy is frowned upon in modern society, of course, as is any gratuitous act that could lead to pain. My own view is that society does not necessarily have a bounden duty to prevent its citizens venturing into the realms of self-harm, but it is probably better for the sake of a more harmonious society if individuals were limited to one legally-recognized partner at a time. As a result, I support the idea that in any dealings with the State, one partner at any one time is the upper limit.

But gender neutral, of course. And because it is the State's relationship with human beings we are talking about, animals are excluded from consideration, totally.

Bigamy, of course, is a crime because it is polygamy plus deception.

Pericles,
I’m asking why a man should not be allowed to marry two sisters. (Let’s assume for the moment that the sisters are not subject to any deception.)

You’ve described polygamy as a

“gratuitous act that could lead to pain.”

With some imagining that could well describe polygamous marriage.
It could also easily describe: homosexual coupling,
heterosexual coupling,
adultery,
one night stands,
smoking,
ballooning,
hang-gliding,
go-kart racing,
and bungee jumping,

Many things are frowned upon and might cause pain. You’ve stated some personal preferences but I couldn’t discover your reasoning.

From your post, I can’t follow why you’re suggesting that same sex marriage more so than polygamy is better for the sake of a more harmonious society. I’ve lived in parts of Africa where many of the locals (legally) practice polygamy and consider their society to be quite harmonious.

But many thanks for even attempting an answer. That’s more than I was expecting from previous experience of asking that question. I know such questions don’t have simple answers. But those wanting gay marriage are often gratuitously oversimplifying matters by calling it an equal rights issue.

Always happy to help, Dan S de Merengue, you know that.

>>But many thanks for even attempting an answer. That’s more than I was expecting from previous experience of asking that question<<

I'm not entirely sure you captured the essence of my position, though.

>>Many things are frowned upon and might cause pain. You’ve stated some personal preferences but I couldn’t discover your reasoning<<

I was simply taking a sideways dig at the masochism that I associate with a man taking on more than one bride. The convention of one-at-a-time has grown along with our more orderly approach to society - I dare say that your polygamous Africans, given different economic circumstances, will themselves graduate to the concept.

That still doesn't make it "right" or "wrong", both of which are judgements that require a level of absolutism that I personally believe is unnecessary. If a society works more harmoniously through an acceptance of polygamy, then it is the responsibility of that society to permit it. Similarly, if a society has matured sufficiently that it is able to accept that homosexuality a) exists and b) is a perfectly normal expression of being human, then it, too, has a responsibility to permit the relationships that stem from that reality.

But there is no societal value in our embracing polygamy right now. Maybe post-apocalypse we will change our minds, but that's what we humans do. We become wiser with age, wise enough to adapt to changed circumstances.

>>But those wanting gay marriage are often gratuitously oversimplifying matters by calling it an equal rights issue.<<

My attitude towards human rights is fairly well documented elsewhere on this forum. Society can never create "equal rights" until such time as we are all "equal". Which is still a few centuries away, thank goodness. So I agree. Acceptance of gay couples should be seen as pragmatic, basic common sense, showing a concern for the well-being of our society. Labelling it as a "human right" gives all the wrong signals, except for having consistent "rights" in the eyes of the law.