Leviticus 20:21's Relevance To Polyandry

People who think the Bible condemns polyandry, the status of a woman having multiple husbands at once, are delusional. Non sequitur and red herring ideas such as the lack of any examples of polyandry therein might get attention.  Clearly, people who believe this and also are committed to at least their own distortion of Christianity probably do not live consistently whatsoever.  They almost certainly read books besides the Bible or drive cars or do all sorts of things the Bible does not mention.  However, since these things are not touched on, the truth is not that their Biblical morality is ambiguous.  In all cases, since these things are not condemned directly or indirectly in any way, they are objectively and blatantly nonsinful (Deuteronomy 4:2), as with polyandry and polygamy.  I address other reasons why adultery, rape, and so on cannot be sinful only for one gender or the other here [1], and now I will focus on marriage to multiple people at once.

Leviticus 20:21 says the following: "'"If a man married his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother.  They will be childless."'"  It is written as if addressed to a male listener, from which it would not logically follow that the same obligation does not apply if the genders were linguistically switched.  This already necessitates that the basis on which many people who believe this stand, alongside them perhaps thinking that Jewish history and culture dictate what the Bible means rather than the Bible prescribing how Jews and non-Jews alike should live, which is what Jewish culture and all others should conform to no matter how much it might defy tradition or preference.  The details of this verse in Leviticus would be redundant, utterly unnecessary, though, if women with a husband are never to have multiple simultaneous husbands (as opposed to multiple husbands consecutively due to death or legitimately divorcing at least once).  In the sexist idea read into the text by some, a man is never to have sex with another man's wife, hence why women are supposedly forbidden from having more than one husband at once even as men are free to marry multiple women at once or even, according to some, have sex outside a marital relationship at this stage (having sex with multiple people is not the same as having extramarital sex due to polyamorous marriages).

No, this is really just a somewhat gender-inverted affirmation of the previous command to not marry two siblings at the same time, worded regarding a man marrying two sisters (Leviticus 18:18), which only further exemplifies how the commands of the Bible apply to both genders except where they involve literal anatomy, as with the likes of circumcision, since anatomy does not necessitate psychological traits.  A man is not allowed to marry two sisters at once and neither is a woman allowed to marry two brothers in this way.  Leviticus 18:16 and 18:20 would also be redundant under the idiotic sexist interpretation, for the wife of a man's brother is the wife of one of his neighbors--yet they are separate laws provided right after a prohibition of sex with close family members, though the wife of another man's neighbor would not have to be a close family member at all.  There is more than just the family aspect that is relevant to some of these commands, and not only is 18:6 gender neutral, which introduces the following demands, but there would be no need for moral clarification about obligations in 20:21 if all women are to only ever have one living husband at a time.

It would simply be needless to specify that a man should not have sex with (Leviticus 18:16) or marry his brother's wife (20:21) if the aforementioned misogynistic assumption about the Torah's sexual ethics was true.  Actually, marrying a brother's wife after his death to continue his line is prescribed in selective circumstances in Deuteronomy 25 (the woman's line continues either way as long as she has any children at all, but the man's line could end otherwise, this being related to the anatomy of gender and not to unrelated complementarianism), so this could not be about a man never sexually or maritally engaging with such a woman under any circumstances!  It is about living siblings not sharing each other's spouses.  A man is not to marry both a woman and her sister (again, 18:18) and a woman is not to marry both a man and his brother (20:21), which, worded the other way around, would be described as a man marrying his brother's wife.  The obligation is the fucking same for men and women in all ways.

There would be no reason to specify or benefit in calling attention to any of this if it could just be stated that women must never have multiple husbands at once, something the Bible never teaches.  Some inanely think (as in assume) that the wording of a man not having sex with another man's wife is a simultaneous prohibition of polyandry and permittance of married men having sex with women outside of their marriage as long as they are not married to another man, which is supposedly forbidden for women.  Of course, if this was taught, this would contradict the obvious gender equality of Genesis 1:26-27 and the explicit egalitarianism of many places in Mosaic Law, which require that, where an obligation does not literally hinge on having anatomy, such as with circumcision, obligations would have to be the same for men and women, since something evil that can be done by both could only be evil for both and vice versa.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/09/do-not-commit-adultery.html