PolygamyFollow

Dear lord, Alma. I hope you're being cute.



I sort of gleaned that the context was more towards the idea of polyamory. I think everyone is familiar with the special "Utah compound" brand of it, but there are polyamorous people all over the country, in addition to swinging, who generally don't publicize it and so the lifestyle isn't well-understood beyond what you see on sensational MSNBC documentaries.

There was one young lady that I really liked-- very attractive, similar interests, no red flag qualities... except that she was polyamorous. She preferred to have intimate relationships with multiple men, would not be in a monoamorous relationship, and this was always understood by the people she was involved with, who were often polyamorous themselves. She didn't normally cohabitate, but others do. Sometimes all involved cohabitate together (like in the Utah villages), sometimes two cohabitate and have separate relationships with others who live away, etc... there are all kinds of complex combinations and somewhere a group of people to represent each one.



I wouldn't chalk it up to intelligence-- it's just not for everyone. Many people in those relationships feel as though they're surrounded by friends, they can divide up the work, and they're very satisfied. Personally my partner and I shared an apartment with my brother and his partner (not as romantic partners, of course)... the three of them hated the situation. Personally, I really liked the idea of living with three of my favorite people under one roof, even in a small apartment. Some people just don't find that living romantically or platonically with one person is as satisfying as two, three, or more. They like having those deeply intimate relationships with more than one person, and/or knowing that the people they are intimate with are intimate with one another (again, either romantically or platonically).

Of course, people who struggle to maintain one good relationship would probably find it to be more trouble than it's worth. I think polyamory is better suited to those who tend to have more effortless relationships.

Well, like you said, it's not for everyone. I'm more of a hermit, myself. Sometimes I'd rather just be completely alone, though sharing an apartment with 1 roomie is tolerable. I lived in a situation where it was several of us, and I kept pulling my hair out in frustration.

Different strokes for different blokes, I guess?

A TV show? Really?

Um... No unmarried woman can simply put a mans name on a birth certificate. The man has to sign a form acknowledging paternity for his name to appear on the birth certificate, and then only if he's present and nearby when the data for that document is being collected. As far as I know, this is the case in every state in the US. It would be an astounding breach of civil rights if this were not the case. Think it through. Any random unmarried woman could write anyones name down and it becomes automatically part of the legal birth records?


That's ridiculous and you know it.

Sorry, I didn't spell it out. My mistake. Most states require the father to sign the affidavit to get his name on the birth certificate.

Yes, exactly. So can we agree that if the mother is not married there is a greater likelihood that a father will not be identified on the child's birth certificate and that this lack will create a whole string of future road blocks when it comes to child support and parental responsibility issues?

I'm not sure why anyone's debating this. In one case the father is always going to be listed on the birth certificate and thus is legally required to take responsibility for the child from the day it is born. In the other case, this may not happen. It's certainly not automatic as is the case when the mother is married.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 6:58pm by gbaji

Why don't you Joph? I'll note again that you have failed to actually say that I'm wrong.

I'm not and you know it. So how about knocking off the little puppet show you've got going on there?

If by being super defensive, you mean wondering how the hell someone can claim with a straight face something which is absolutely false, and then marveling at the willingness of 5 other posters to ignore that blatant falsehood out of some kind of apparent need to never ever question someone on their own "side". Internet forum dynamics are amusing, but sometimes tiring too!

Um... You do realize that I didn't misunderstand what you said, right? I knew you meant that the father signed the affidavit. I was correcting the part about it only being "some states" which require this. All states require this because otherwise any woman could put any mans name on the birth documentation.

So maybe *I* wasn't clear enough. I wasn't disagreeing with what you said, only correcting it to say that it applied in all cases (that I'm aware of at least, I suppose it's possible some state actually does allow women to do this). My other comments were directed at those who were arguing that not being married somehow creates no barriers to legally determining the fathers of children and getting them to take responsibility for those children.

It's not always about you man! Sometimes I quote something just because it touches on a part of the issue I want to discuss. Don't read more into it than that.

I don't think I mind polyamory as a concept. Whatever turns you on, etc. It's not my cup of tea, but I am in the same position of having enough trouble with one husband.

I'm more squicked by the religious aspect of it. I think that's just me being squicked by religions in general, but I have serious mental difficulty wrapping my mind around any religion requiring you to marry multiple partners to get the Good Ending in the game of life. It turns especially creepy with fundamental Mormonism (e.g. Warren Jeffs), where teenaged girls are married off to men in their fifties, and younger men in the community are often kicked out of the compounds because they are a threat to the status of the older men. There aren't enough women for every man to have three wives, after all.

A community that doesn't have a place for all the members it produces is not a healthy community, and couching it in religious terms makes it outright destructive.

If you understood what I said, the part that you're completely ignoring would be unnecessary to state. A simple "Pretty sure all states, full stop" would have sufficed. Which brings us aaaaaalll the way back around to the enjoyment of watching you argue when you misunderstand things. Keep going.

I've still got to catch up to Belkira.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 10:31pm by lolgaxe

A simple "yeah. I did misread what you wrote" would have sufficed right there. The third sentence contains a pretty straightforward explanation for why the first must be true. There's nothing wrong with it, unless you somehow got completely turned around about what we were talking about.


There are two conditions:

1. Woman writes any man's name on birth certificate and this becomes legally binding truth.

2. Man's name may only appear on birth certificate if he is the husband of the woman, or he signs an affidavit accepting parental responsibility.



If a state does not require condition 2, then any unmarried woman may write any man's name down on her child's birth certificate. Since that's quite obviously absurd and impractical from any rational legal perspective, then condition 2 must be assumed to be the case (unless a state actually is being absurd and impractical, of course). Thus, it should be all states, not just some states.


You have a mental block or something?



Lolirony!

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 7:50pm by gbaji

So it should be true in all states, not just "some".

That's all I was saying. Not sure why you had to make a huge production out of this. I was agreeing with you, but extending your statement to "all states". Sheesh!


Talk about being defensive!