No, I am neither a rabbit nor a fish, for both of these animals symbolize a part of Christianity, e.g., the Easter rabbit and the fish symbol on the car bumpers and trucks of many Christians, right?Genesis 2:24-28, man and woman; Matthews 5:17-19 (I think) Jesus, man and woman.
1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife; and let every woman have her own husband.
Golly, bub, no "zakar" here. Perhaps you are a rabbit or fish?
At any rate, since you are stuck on this one man and one woman bandwagon, then perhaps, you can explain why your friend Paul saw it necessary to make one of the qualifications for being a bishop to be the husband of one wife. You see, contrary to what you have chosen to believe, polygamy was permitted, rather than prohibited. In fact, one of your Gods commandments addressed what a man who had more than one wife was supposed to do. But then again, since this refutes your one man and one woman argument, I guess you would rather ignore and discard it as though it did not exist, right?
And if you disagree, here is your Gods commandment that specifically gives instruction to and Israelite man who had children by two wives (not one wife):
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his(Deu 21:15-17, KJV).