Which ones? And I'm talking about country where society doesn't tolerate polygamy, such as christian and jewish. It's one thing to have legal polygamy in state where society allows for it (e.g. islam)
Because totalitarian state could more easily pass laws legalising polygamy and then supress opposition than democratic. It would be easier for legalised polygamy to be passed in SU under Stalin since there would be no serious opposition and those who would oppose it (e.g. church) could be silenced by repressive aparatus. However in democratic society, such as UK or France, the opposition from conservative circles, including church(es) would be loud and government couldn't simply sent priests and bishops who would speak against it to some gulag equivalent. Also people would be free to state opposition and parties could easily run on that ticket.
It hardly that. It's a point that no matter how bad popualtion ratios were screwed because of war no state where societal norms didn't allow it before didn't institute legal polygamy as a result. It didn't happen in France, it didn't happen in Eastern Europe. And the fact that this idea was fringe even in Nazi Germany shows that society had little tolerance for it back when OT is talking about.
1. You said that no society has legalized polygamy, not even totalitarian ones. The word "society" does not exclusively refer to Judeo-Christian societies. And yes, societies that don't tolerate polygamy don't allow polygamy, whereas societies that tolerate polygamy are much more likely to allow polygamy. What's your point?
2. Arguably, it's easier for an absolute monarchy to abolish slavery, whereas in the United States you have to deal with all this "democracy" nonsense. It's easier to make
anything legal or illegal in a dictatorship. Polygamy in itself is not an issue specifically relevant to or associated with totalitarianism.
3. The gender imbalance was not so terrible as to overcome centuries of established social mores. The imbalance was also nowhere large enough that anybody should have expected it to do so. And again, I'm not sure what the Nazis have to do with this.
You can be a little less rude.
The OT and NT have some seriously different values in em. You can't transplant all the rules/laws from the OT into the NT as some of them are void.
You can be a little less wrong. It's one thing to blurt out something in real life because someone asked you and expected you to answer; it's another to take the time and effort to type something that's clearly wrong in a topic where you weren't obligated to respond.
The NT specifically says that the OT is valid in all of its parts. But I'm not going to discuss supersessionism with you; your comment was erroneous, and Jesus as commonly portrayed (i.e., the Biblical Jesus) wasn't particularly concerned with sexual relations.