Re. Court-imposed financial obligations to the woman (meaning, besides child support), I'm just suggesting that it's almost always a big mistake to formalize a relationship with any woman for any reason besides genuine love (including sharing a home, regardless of marital status) and regardless of jurisdiction, with only one exception: Namely, if two normal sane mature people who aren't necessarily romantically involved want to create a home together because both of them value becoming parents more than finding love and they're considering their biological parental windows of opportunity (etc.), that's a rational reason to marry someone without the love component. That would apply to people who just never found the right romantic partner as well as to gay people who might choose to establish a traditional-looking marriage for whatever reason they think they need to do that.
With all due respect, this isn't a dissection of the issue at all; it's just a restatement of our fundamental disagreement: You believe that the benefits to the child of having parents who are married (regardless of the circumstances and dynamic between them) outweigh the harm of the conflicts that normally go with that territory within the home. I believe the exact opposite: that a child is better off being raised by one loving parent in a stable conflict-free home than by a married couple who really have no business being married but made that decision just because they had a child together. For the same reason, I don't think divorce is worse for kids than having a home that's only "intact" because parents who'd have otherwise divorced choose not to "for the kids." I'd agree that it might be better for the kids only where there's no conflict in the home; but I think that's relatively rare between couples considering divorce.
It's possible that your intended tone isn't accurately reflected in your word choice, but when I hear "Buddy" and "20 different men a month" and (especially) "good luck with that," I hear sarcasm and at least passive aggression or antagonism, although I acknowedge that I could be misreading your intended tone. The guy to whom you're responding just explained that his marriage does work for him. My wife isn't a provider, but we also have a sexually open marriage and even if she drew slightly different lines from providers about what she was comfortable doing in the champagne room as a stripper, it's all the same shit, in principle, and there's nothing we haven't watched one another do with other people in person. That doesn't mean it's right for you, of course; but just because it's not right for you is hardly evidence that such relationships can't survive and you really have no basis at all for that conjecture about other people based on your own anecdotal preferences or sensibilities.
