the thing that bothers me the most about these cases where parents have to pay support for children

[dsc]

that geneticly aren't theirs. Why is it that only support seems to work that way? Many unmarried people who weren't geneticly related to children they have raised (either due to being in a same-sex relationship or deciding for some other reason not to marry) lose those children when the relationship breaks up. It doesn't matter if those relationships last for minutes, months, or decades no genetics, no visitation and no other rights. But once there is a responsibility involved then all of the sudden we hear "the child had a right to this money" and "genetics don't matter". This is terribly inconsistant. Either genetics matter or they don't. They shouldn't not matter when the state doesn't want to pay welfare but all of the sudden matter when some lesbian or gay man wishes to visit a child he or she has raised. I can understand the need for a hard and fast rule, even when it leads to unfairness, but then the rule should be hard and fast. Otherwise it looks an awful lot more like convience than the best interest of the children.

[dsc]

1. kick