[Travis McGee]

I don’t give a damn what you, the law of yesterday, today, or tomorrow, judges, lawyers, lesbian or hetero mommies or anybody else says: a man’s DNA is supplied only voluntarily, and when it’s offered to a woman’s uterus via natural means or a turkey baster, it produces that man’s child.

A man’s sperm produces a man’s child. Who else is the father? An archangel? An alien? An abstract legal construct?

And when that child reaches age and searches for his or her father, he’s searching for the man who VOLUNTARILY produced his DNA, one way or the other.

You, the courts, and a million lesbians can pretend otherwise, but the FATHER of that child is, and always shall be, the man who provided the DNA via his sperm.

Now, if he’s an unfit father, a deadbeat, a drug addict or whatnot and should have his rights terminated by the court, that is another legal question.

But he will be the child’s father nonetheless.

[AbolishCSEU]

Thank you for completely missing my point. WHY do we have child support in the first place? If the bio parents do break up shouldn't it be 50/50 custody with each parent paying for the child when said child is in said parent's custody? "Child" support is the pinnacle of wealth redistribution. No one is disputing that genetically that man is the father. What is being disputed is that why should a lesbian couple be allowed to go on welfare after they made it PERFECTLY clear that they "don't need a man?"

They somehow need a man's WALLET and none of his influence on child rearing. The fact that the Welfare system blindly goes after the father as a kneejerk reaction is what is at issue here. And as far as "deadbeat" goes, there are more per capita "deadbeat" MOMS not paying their child support than there are "deadbeat" dads. Your false chivalry is showing.