Sperm donor to lesbian couple ordered to pay child support

[JustTheFacts]

Wow. Seriously, you get crazier by the day.

Why is that crazy?

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.

The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.

UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.

Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Wow. Seriously, you get crazier by the day.

Why is that crazy?

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The queer couple are wrong. Not only that, they're both sick and deranged. If you need to know why, it's very simple. Queers are not fit parents.

 

[AmyNation]

Why is that crazy?

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.

The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.

UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.

Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?

A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.

 

[Sallow]

he should have gotten the legal protection at the time.

That is the lesson here.

No truer words were spoken..

 

[Katzndogz]

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.

The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.

UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.

Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?

A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.

He was a sperm donor ONLY to the women. To the state he was as much of a father as the guy who thought he was having a one night stand.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Who is going to pay for the psychological damage to the child?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Why is that crazy?

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The queer couple are wrong. Not only that, they're both sick and deranged. If you need to know why, it's very simple. Queers are not fit parents.

Too bad for you that in THIS country EVERYONE has the right to be sick or deranged in whatever way they choose as long as they are not infringing on someone else.

As for your comment about fit parents. I would argue that 9 out of 10 parents in any random Wal Mart , or any other store, you walk into are unfit parents. Do we take all those kids away? No, not unless there is actual abuse.

Good luck proving gay parents is abuse.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.

The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.

UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.

Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?

A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.

A rapist is not a parent either, hell nether is a dead beat parent that takes off and never sees their kid either for that matter; they still are obligated to pay child support.

What kind of MORON would give their sperm to someone without consulting an attorney? One that later owes child support, that's what kind.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Who is going to pay for the psychological damage to the child?

Here is where you present evidence that children of gay parents have more psychological damage than children of straight parents, right?

 

[AmyNation]

The statement you quoted and called crazy said NOTHING about gay, and that isn't the point anyone is making.

The POINT is if two people of ANY sexual persuasion want to have a child and then agree to no child support then they need to leave the state out of it completely. The states don't have the manpower nor the desire to chase down child support cases where a complaint hasn't been brought. Meaning you could owe a million dollars in child support and if your ex doesn't complain, the state will never attempt to collect.

UNLESS the custodial parent goes on welfare, then the state has a vested interest in collecting child support.

Or are you suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable for one parent to not pay for a child so that the other parent has to collect child support?

A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.

He was a sperm donor ONLY to the women. To the state he was as much of a father as the guy who thought he was having a one night stand.

Which is utter nonsense.

Kanas needs to change its law. If they rule agaisnt the donor on the basis that the insemination wasn't performed by a doctor, they are opening up a huge can of worms, which would allow any woman who uses a sperm donor to turn around and sue for support.

 

[JustTheFacts]

A sperm donor is not a parent. And yes, it is 100% wrong for the state to attempt to collect money from someone who is in no way, shape or form, the parent of a child.

He was a sperm donor ONLY to the women. To the state he was as much of a father as the guy who thought he was having a one night stand.

Which is utter nonsense.

Kanas needs to change its law. If they rule agaisnt the donor on the basis that the insemination wasn't performed by a doctor, they are opening up a huge can of worms, which would allow any woman who uses a sperm donor to turn around and sue for support.

Kansas doesn't need to change anything. Idiots need to realize that there legal ways to do things and if one wants the protection of the law, one must follow those laws.

Do you not get that if the custodial parent hadn't went on welfare this would never have been an issue?

Do you not get that if they had gone through a sperm bank, non issue?

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Trying to justify the states attempt to force a sperm donor to pay child support is crazy. Trying to make this a gay issue, is crazy. There is so much crazy in that rant, it overflows.

I don't really care if you think being gay is sinful or gross, you should still be able to realize that the law is wrong, and the state is wrong. If the couple in question were a divorced man and woman, instead of two women, would it still be acceptable to you for the state to go after their sperm donor for child support?

The queer couple are wrong. Not only that, they're both sick and deranged. If you need to know why, it's very simple. Queers are not fit parents.

Too bad for you that in THIS country EVERYONE has the right to be sick or deranged in whatever way they choose as long as they are not infringing on someone else.

As for your comment about fit parents. I would argue that 9 out of 10 parents in any random Wal Mart , or any other store, you walk into are unfit parents. Do we take all those kids away? No, not unless there is actual abuse.

Good luck proving gay parents is abuse.

They "infringed" on an innocent human being, the child. Good luck proving 9/10 parents are unfit. Beyond stupid.

 

[AmyNation]

He was a sperm donor ONLY to the women. To the state he was as much of a father as the guy who thought he was having a one night stand.

Which is utter nonsense.

Kanas needs to change its law. If they rule agaisnt the donor on the basis that the insemination wasn't performed by a doctor, they are opening up a huge can of worms, which would allow any woman who uses a sperm donor to turn around and sue for support.

Kansas doesn't need to change anything. Idiots need to realize that there legal ways to do things and if one wants the protection of the law, one must follow those laws.

Do you not get that if the custodial parent hadn't went on welfare this would never have been an issue?

Do you not get that if they had gone through a sperm bank, non issue?

If they had used a sperm bank, this could still be happening. The law in Kanas specifies that a doctor must perform the insemination, however most sperm banks give you the option to either do it in clinic with the doctor or have the sperm shipped to your home.

Any woman who goes to a sperm bank could still sue the donor, or the state could, under that law as long as the doctor doesn't perform the insemnation.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The queer couple are wrong. Not only that, they're both sick and deranged. If you need to know why, it's very simple. Queers are not fit parents.

Too bad for you that in THIS country EVERYONE has the right to be sick or deranged in whatever way they choose as long as they are not infringing on someone else.

As for your comment about fit parents. I would argue that 9 out of 10 parents in any random Wal Mart , or any other store, you walk into are unfit parents. Do we take all those kids away? No, not unless there is actual abuse.

Good luck proving gay parents is abuse.

They "infringed" on an innocent human being, the child. Good luck proving 9/10 parents are unfit. Beyond stupid.

How did they infringe?

Really? Have you seen all the shitty misbehaving children out there? I swear when we''re out somewhere even my kids are looking around like "what the fuck is wrong with these kids?"

I suppose you blame Bush for that LOL

 

[LibertyLemming]

one of my first threads on this forum kind of concerned this topic. If women can opt out of parenthood by aborting a child without so much as consulting with the father of the child, then a man should also have an option of opting out of parenthood. Prior to birth, at the very least, a man should be able to opt out and not have to pay any child support or have anything to do with the child. It is a disgusting double standard that women can say "no thanks" to the good ole stork and abort the child, even if the father wants to keep it, but that a man can't opt out as well. Apparently they are good enough to help you get pregnant and to pay for the child if you decide to keep it, but not good enough to include in the decision to rear a child.

i 100% agree that men should be able to opt out.

+1

 

[JustTheFacts]

one of my first threads on this forum kind of concerned this topic. If women can opt out of parenthood by aborting a child without so much as consulting with the father of the child, then a man should also have an option of opting out of parenthood. Prior to birth, at the very least, a man should be able to opt out and not have to pay any child support or have anything to do with the child. It is a disgusting double standard that women can say "no thanks" to the good ole stork and abort the child, even if the father wants to keep it, but that a man can't opt out as well. Apparently they are good enough to help you get pregnant and to pay for the child if you decide to keep it, but not good enough to include in the decision to rear a child.

i 100% agree that men should be able to opt out.

+1

I agree with this also. Letting men have no say either way in the matter then whining if they opt to just bail is beyond stupid.

 

[AsheedMidrarwz]

Too bad for you that in THIS country EVERYONE has the right to be sick or deranged in whatever way they choose as long as they are not infringing on someone else.

As for your comment about fit parents. I would argue that 9 out of 10 parents in any random Wal Mart , or any other store, you walk into are unfit parents. Do we take all those kids away? No, not unless there is actual abuse.

Good luck proving gay parents is abuse.

They "infringed" on an innocent human being, the child. Good luck proving 9/10 parents are unfit. Beyond stupid.

How did they infringe?

Really? Have you seen all the shitty misbehaving children out there? I swear when we''re out somewhere even my kids are looking around like "what the fuck is wrong with these kids?"

I suppose you blame Bush for that LOL

We're not talking about "shitty misbehaving children". There is an innocent human being here. Are you nuts?

 

[AmyNation]

I've argued the allowing men to opt out point before.

Some time before the end of the 1st trimester women should be required to legally notify any potential fathers, and then the father can make his intentions known, whether it is to give up all rights, or to assume responsibility. That way the woman can make an informed decision on whether to terminate or carry to term.

 

[JustTheFacts]

They "infringed" on an innocent human being, the child. Good luck proving 9/10 parents are unfit. Beyond stupid.

How did they infringe?

Really? Have you seen all the shitty misbehaving children out there? I swear when we''re out somewhere even my kids are looking around like "what the fuck is wrong with these kids?"

I suppose you blame Bush for that LOL

We're not talking about "shitty misbehaving children". There is an innocent human being here. Are you nuts?

What are you babbling about? Post your evidence that gay parents somehow mess kids up, or shut up. Simple as that.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I've argued the allowing men to opt out point before.

Some time before the end of the 1st trimester women should be required to legally notify any potential fathers, and then the father can make his intentions known, whether it is to give up all rights, or to assume responsibility. That way the woman can make an informed decision on whether to terminate or carry to term.

I agree, BUT that is not the current law, and never will be because of the reason stated above. The state considers child support to be due the child rather than the , in this case, mother. So the mother can not legally sign away the child's right to collect.

It's a sticky point for sure, and is reason why the guy in Kansas was a dumb fuck for not consulting an attorney who absolutely would have told him the same thing.