Yes. Particularly if all of the potential fathers act as fathers to all of the child(ren). Having lots of parents (rather than just the traditional two) has all the advantages of having a large extended family, only more so.
No, of course not. She wouldn't have that "responsibility" under any circumstances, so how many husbands she has is totally irrelevant.
There is a LOT more to marriage (yes, even for men) than sex. Your assumptions seem immature at best, and deeply immoral at worst.
If a man thinks there is a 25% chance he is the father I think he would be less likely to stick around than if he thinks there is a 100% chance. He might also spend more time with a child if he thinks he is possibly the father vs if it was a 100% chance. It would also mean that he'd probably offer inheritances for children that might not be his own, etc.
If the woman isn't providing sex to all of her husbands they have less reason to stick around, particularly if they aren't sure if any of her children are theirs.
In polygamy if the women aren't putting out the man could just try and get more wives. In polyandry the men seem to be stuck in a sexless marriage - unless they leave her and the children. BTW another advantage with knowing both parents is to work out if there are genetic issues, etc.
What is there besides sex and children? Companionship? In polyandry the men would normally only get a fraction of their wife's time. But the wife would be spending some time looking after the children. In polygamy there is more help with looking after the children.
I did point out that polyandry in Tibet isn't as bad as it could have been - "Two, three, four, or more brothers jointly take a wife" - that means that the children would have the same grandparents on the man's side of the family. (unless the grandfather also involved polyandry but then the shared grandfather just goes up another level).
Where does "bad" even come in to it?
Well you'd normally assume parenthood - but that sometimes can't be done in theory in polyandry.
So you don't understand why I think having unrelated husbands is worse than them being brothers? If all of the brothers shared the same parents it would be easy for the children to know their grandparents. But if there were five unrelated husbands do you really think it is likely that the children would get to know all five sets of living grandparents? And also record all of their names and ancestors in case you wanted to do a genealogy? And if it was a second generation of polyandry it would be even harder to do a genealogy.
Why on Earth wouldn't they??
So what? What use is a genealogy anyway?
In Genesis the genealogies (and ages at fatherhood) can be used to approximately date the age of the Earth and the global Flood (assuming it was historical). In the gospels two contradictory genealogies are used to show that Jesus fulfilled related prophecies...
That's a VERY poor assumption. The Earth cannot be dated by genealogies. because humans have been around for about 2% of the time the Earth has existed. And there never was a global flood, after granitic continental crust started to collect at the Earth's surface, floating on top of the basaltic ocean bed crust (continental crust forms at depth, but the granitic rock thus produced is less dense than basalt, and so tends to aggregate as a kind of floating dross, that sits up far enough from the oceanic floor to always protrude above sea level once there is enough of it at the top
Which are pure BS. So the genealogies were just usless props for nonsensical claims.In the gospels two contradictory genealogies are used to show that Jesus fulfilled related prophecies...
It's not possible with them, because their accuracy is always dubious (very few people are certain who their father is). You can get an answer, but not likely the right answer.
...yet another example of why no sensible person should care what the Bible says, because it's generally wrong about pretty much everything.
I guess we will never know whether or not it is possible, because you haven't tried to convince me yet.
Yet you comment on threads that are in a forum category mainly about the Bible.
I still find it interesting even if it isn't true. e.g. I made these resources about the genealogies in the gospels:
That insight does demonstrate how uninterested you are in the Bible.
Perhaps I haven't tried with every fibre of my being but I believe I have tried to some extent. 1. the Bible uses them a lot so genealogies seem to be useful for writers of the Bible 2. my father found some benefits - got to find out about his ancestors and where they lived, etc.
I gave at least 2 reasons (see previous statement) - not "nothing". Maybe you are exaggerating.
I guess it is possible that you have no knowledge about why genealogies could possibly be useful, as you claim.
I just gave 2 reasons which I had already mentioned earlier. I suspect that if I had originally said that genealogies are completely pointless you might be arguing on the other side...
