Friday, November 9, 2007

Polyandry: Is It Permissable For A Woman To Have Numerous Husbands?
Polyandry is the state or condition of one woman having two or more husbands simultaneously. Polyandry is rare, though it is found among the Shoshone of Nevada, the Todas in India, the Bashile of the Congo, and the Yanomanis in Venezuela. Although the Bible includes numerous examples of men having multiple wives, nowhere in the Bible do we find an example of polyandry, the state of one woman being married to more than one man. Because of this, many, even those who allow for polygamy, have concluded that polyandry is a sin today.

What Did Aquinas Say About Polyandry?
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, it is critical for a child's self-identity to know who his biological parents are. Therefore, according to Aquinas, the practice of polyandry is unthinkable as "man naturally desires to know his offspring, and this knowledge would be completely destroyed if there were several males for one female. Therefore, that one female is for one male is a consequence of natural instinct." (Summa Contra Gentiles III. 124.1)

In the practice of polyandry there is no certainty of family relations as the woman has sexual relations with numerous men. Simply put, according to Aquinas, polygamy does not directly conflict with natural law because in it the child knows who his parents are. Aquinas believed that polyandry conflicts with natural law.

I have to agree with Aquinas... to an extent. But what if there is no desire to produce children? And what if safe and effective birth control is implemented? After all, the pill and condom were invented long after Aquinas was picking daisies; certainly, this added ingredient should be a relevant consideration when evaluating this ethical equation.

Furthermore, isn't becoming one flesh just as much a purpose for sex as producing babies? And pardon me for sounding a bit hedonistic, but is it really such a bad thing to enjoy sex for no other reason than just... enjoying sex?

However, there are other matters to consider in regards to polyandry. For example, in most cultures, there are more men than women. However, this has not always been the case. For example, female infanticide, i.e. the slaying of female babies, was common in some traditional patriarchal societies, such as ancient Greece and Rome. It is also becoming increasingly common today in parts of India and China. According to a web article entitled
Indian Organizations Struggle to Remedy Frightening Sex Ratio:

NEW DELHI, Sept 9 (OneWorld South Asia) - It is believed that the Chinese kill over a million girls every year in order to have a boy. It is also believed that Indians are about to overtake the Chinese in a few years. With an alarmingly adverse sex ratio of 933 women per thousand men, which is the lowest in south Asia, Indians have gained notoriety for selectively killing female fetuses.

In Greece and ancient Rome, a child was virtually its father's chattel—e.g., in Roman law, the Patria Potestas granted the father the right to dispose of his offspring as he saw fit. In Sparta the decision was made by a public official. Child sacrifice occurs in many traditional societies for religious reasons, but human sacrificial victims were generally appreciated members of society, unlike victims of infanticide, who were devalued.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

very much enjoyed your post. you raise so many interesting questions. i will bookmark this blog for sure. i do not practice polyandry, yet.

Libertine said...

A few corrections: Most societies have more women than men, not the reverse as you stated.

Secondly, you misused the word "polygamy". Polygamy is the umbrella term for when either men or women may have more than one spouse. PolyGYNY is the particular form of polygamy that allows one man to have many wives and polyandry is the form of polygamy that allows one woman to have many husbands. Polygamy is not synonymous with polygyny, though the media misuses the term in this way all the time.

To address your original question, there's a very good and practical reason why we don't see polyandry referred to in the Bible and it has nothing whatsoever to do with sin.

Polygyny, polyandry,and monogamy are mating strategies related to economic realities. We don't see polyandry in the Bible simply because it wasn't a useful mating strategy in Biblical cultures that sought to quickly increase their populations.

In ancient times, polygyny often occurred in areas where population growth was desired and/or needed, such as in agricultural societies where many hands were needed to do the necessary work, and where women outnumbered men.

Polygyny is a much more efficient system than monogamy if the goal is to produce large amounts of children. One woman can produce only so many children regardless of the form her marriage takes, but one man can easily sire hundreds of children with multiple women.

Polyandry is suited well for societies where population growth needs to be halted and where men outnumber women. Polyandry limits population growth, as several men are sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one woman. Today's China is a society that would be ideally suited for polyandry, as China both desires to curb its rampant overpopulation and currently has a surplus of 30 million males.

Polyandry, however, was not suited for ancient Biblical societies, as they neither needed nor believed in limiting population growth.

Monogamy seems to split the difference between polygyny and polyandry. It limits the reproductive capacities of men compared to polygyny, but not as much as polyandry would.

In ancient Biblical societies that sought to increase population, however, monogamy was harder on women than polygyny because for her husband to have the same amount of children, she would have to bear more children singlehandedly, than several wives would if her husband had been polygynous. Plus there would be fewer hands available to do the necessary household work.

Thus, polyandry wasn't necessarily considered inherently "sinful" in ancient biblical culture, but, rather, not a particularly useful practice for their societal needs.

peachperry said...

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

peachperry said...

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah had then ordered his daughter-in-law Tamar not to marry again, because Judah pledged Tamar that she would marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry, although it was against the law to put a woman to death for harlotry. Tamar came and produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar would have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

peachperry said...

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9   King James 1611.   
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:15&35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

peachperry said...

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

peachperry said...

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUTILATAS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATOS.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUSICOS.

peachperry said...

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

peachperry said...

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

Anonymous said...

The reason you don't see many direct references to Polyandry in biblical times is it wouldn't have made biological sense to use polyandry as a mating strategy.

Humans are a polygynous species, which has been substantiated by many scientists across several different diciplines. The basic evidence is strictly based on our physiology. We are a sexual dimorphic species (i.e. males and females are easily distinguishable - okay well most of the time) and aspects of these differences show similiarites with other polygynous speices. Do I honestly need to say anything about human behavior? I think all of our own personal experiences speak loudly there.

Furthmore, human females put forth a tremendous amount of energy into their offspring, between the energetic cost of the egg and the energetic cost of carrying the young for 9 months. The initial investment for the success of that offspring is very high and all that unfortunately is placed square on the female. On the other side of the coin males put forth initially very little to the union (i.e. sperm = cheap). Furthermore, this extremely large discrepency in initial energy input leaves the female in the position to be exploited.

While humans though time have exhibited all types of mating strategies we are still considered to be polygynous (males have multiple mates) while also being socially monogamous.

In socially monogamous animals, males take on more parental responsibilities which improves offspring survivial, but when a receptive female is available temporary partnerships often form (i.e. extra-pair copulation or in english - adultary).

I know I haven't answered the the question that led to this post, but I believed it important to share 1st how I'm approaching the question.

The reason I believe polyandry wasn't directly brought up in the bible is frankly it would have been a severly rare human mating strategy - where as polygyny was not. Furthermore since I don't believe the bible was writen from divin inspiration, the authors of the bible may have not precived (enountered) such a strange mating system and as such didn't include it within the bible.

All that being said, from what I understand, the bible clear states marriage is between 1 man and 1 women. Hence ruling out all mating strategies except for monogamy. So the answer to your question from the prospective of Christianity, yes it is a sin.

Tom Gruber said...

To Libertine,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments and your interest in my blogsite. In response to your post (April 11, 2009), I have never heard of the word polygamy being used as an umbrella term that includes polyandry. The word polygamy literally means "many marriages," NOT "many wives," though that is how it is normally used.

In reference to your comment that "Most societies have more women than men, not the reverse as you (I) stated," consider the following statistics:

There are presently more men in the world than women. Though there are many countries where women greatly outnumber the men, there are also many countries where the reverse is true. As of 2009, there were more men than women in the world, with 102 men for every 100 women. The total world population in 2009 was 6,829,360,438, with a population of 3,442,850,573 men and 3,386,509,865 women. That is a surplus of 56,340,708 men.

In some countries, like Uganda, Zambia, Peru, and Nigeria, the sex ratio of men to women is fairly even. In other countries, like Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emi-rates, there are substantially more men than women. For example, in the United Arab Emirates, which has a total population of 4,598,600, there are 3,093,246 men and 1,505,354 women. That’s over a two to one ratio, with 205 men for every 100 women. Saudi Arabia, which has a total population of 25,720,605, has 121 men for every 100 women.

But there are also many countries that tip the scale in the other direction. Countries such as Armenia, Belarus, El Salvador, Estonia, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, and the Ukraine have less than 90 men for every 100 women.

Of interest to most of my readers is the ratio of men to women in the United States, Can-ada, and Great Britain. In the USA, with a total population of 314 million, 658 thousand, 780, there are 155,244,097 men and 159,414,683 women. That is a total of 97 men for every 100 women. Put another way, this is a surplus of 4 million, 170 thousand, 586 women, which is more women than the entire population of Alabama and more than twice as much as the entire female population of Alabama. To put it another way, imagine that the entire state of Alabama is popu-lated exclusively by women. Then imagine the US government passing a law making it illegal for any of those women to marry. Imagine the outrage that would, and should, ensue. Yet this is a dramatization of exactly what is happening in the United States right now as a result of poly-gamy being illegal.

Canada has a total population of 33,573,467, with 16,624,571 men and 16,948,896 wom-en. That is a total of 98 men for every 100 women, or a surplus of 324,325 women.

The United Kingdom has a total population of 61,565,422, with 30,202,183 men and 31,363, 239 women. That is a total of 96 men for every 100 women, or a surplus of 1,161,056 women.

Anonymous said...

Actually, most societies typically have more men than women, because most families favor sons more often than daughters and they still kill female infants more often than male infants. It's not only in China and India but also in Africa, Latin America, North America, and some parts of Europe too.

Unknown said...

Mary did NOT have 2 Husbands. The Joseph in the Luke genealogy is in the Greek text depicted as not part of the actual genealogy, he's "As was supposed" the father of Jesus. But the real father being identified is the Grandfather, Heli, the father of Mary.

Laura said...

DNA tests? Then the child would know who his/her biological parents are.

Aaron Saltzer said...

I cannot agree with you when you say that the whole purpose of having sex is producing offspring. What about infertile couples who can't have children? Are you saying they can't have the same pleasure of having sex that non-infertile couples do? I have a cousin who is a Christian who can't have children. I do not think Jesus would prohibit her and her husband from having sex just bc she can't reproduce. Give me a break. Not to be rude, but this is reality. Get real, and notice that not everyone can have children. Which is why some couples adopt children. Everyone's different. It's the way God created us. God bless. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone could had children? The world would be overpopulated.

JaredMithrandir said...

Today we have DNA testing to ensure you can know who the parents are. So that old argument is outdated.

Polyandry is not addressed in the Bible directly, but you think about the law about marrying a Widow to her Husband's nearest kin if no child is produced is interesting to look at. What if a Husband is rendered unable to reproduce but is still alive? Sounds like a good case to argue for Fraternal Polyandry.