"Divorce is a red herring to the issue of child support and child care. Children should be supported and raised by both parents whether or not the parents are married, divorced, or were never married. Red herring, as in a diversion from the true issue... no I don't think so. These are divorced non-custodial parents fighting this fight. It's their right to frame the fight in terms of their needs. Without easy access to no fault divorce and slam dunk custody of the kids, families wouldn't be broken up by one spouse's whimsical desire to "spread their wings" or play the field.
These are divorced non-custodial parents fighting this fight. It's their right to frame the fight in terms of their needs.
Right. Obviously missing any reference to the obligations parents have for their offspring. You make my point for me.
Without easy access to no fault divorce and slam dunk custody of the kids, families wouldn't be broken up by one spouse's whimsical desire to "spread their wings" or play the field.
Again, whether families are "broken up" or not is a separate issue from whether or not kids deserve support and care before or after. Children are owed these things regardless the marital situation. Divorce should not be cited as a "excuse" for parents not fulfilling their oblations towards their offspring. What you and Mr. Gay are attempted to do is create a diversion by doing is shifting the issue from the responsibilites of parents towards kids, to a secondary issue, one I might add does not even come into play in many many CS situations because the parents were never married to begin with.
In addition your charachterization of divorce is "whimsical speculation" in and of itself. However that is another topic entirely.
The point of conflating all these issue is so one can create an the illusion that parents' obligations towards their kids are somehow obviated by mitigating circumstances (even completely speculative ones). Interestig ploy but it doesn't fly for those awake and paying attention.
Parents are obligated to support and care for their offspring. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Otherwise you're setting up a framework by which parents can say "I don't think I'm being treated fairly by the co-parent so I'm going to take out my frustration on the kids. Using kids as pawns is a disgusting and cowardly way to deal with adult problems and frustrations, no matter how legitimate they might be.
Oh yeah, the one spreading their wings and playing the field is never the guy who then turns around and refuses to pay child support, never happens. (dripping sarcasm)