₦airaland Forum

QuinQQ:
Not at all. Haven't you been reading? The issue here is uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. This is about settled families! We don't even know wether there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
That's what the govt concern is - Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions that are actually of no benefit to the family or society!

There is nothing like unwarranted DNA fishing expedition. Our legal systems allow for any dispute to be resolved through testing. You are simply being stubborn and myopic. If anybody wants to contest paternity they are legally allowed to. You want the state to curtail our legal rights? This is myopic nonsense please. Come to your senses man!

QuinQQ:
Of course I was saying the same thing. If you've raised a fairly grown child from infancy you can't suddenly start shouting DNA years later. You must wait till the child reaches maturity

You are contradicting and confusing yourself.

In your initial post,you had insisted that a man must accept a child he has bonded with even if he later discovers that the child is not his.

You now recanted by saying if a man discovers child is not his but 'still accepts' the child,should not later disown the child sighting DNA test.

In the first post,you are compelling the man to accept his father role despite discovering a deception but in your latest post,you are saying the man has the right to decide to accept the child after discovering the deception but cannot later change his mind.

These are two different things.
The good news is that you have finally opined that a man cannot be compelled to raise a child after discovering he has been deceived.

QuinQ:
Read the above. The thread is NOT about cheating or adultery or sex!

You have not answered, will tou refuse to carry DNA test if you CLEARLY have doubts about the children your wife claim to be yours?

QuinQQ:
Passing on what legacy? Here's what I wrote earlier:

Nature gave WE animals an extremely strong instinct to have OUR genes survive and most of our actions are dictated by that instinct. But as humans with brains why must we be exactly like lower animals?? We ought USE OUR BRAINS to see that survival of our particular genes benefits us NOTHING! What is important is that we live a fulfilled, satisfying life that includes as much of life as possible, including fatherhood!

As for the rest, that's outside our discussion. What we are discussing here is uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions. This is about settled families! We don't even know wether there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!
That's what the govt concern is - Uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions that are actually of no benefit to that family or society!

Interesting! Actually the government should make it a law that DNA tests has to be a must upon the birth of the child. Because first of all legally it's paternity fraud, breach of trust, and conspiracy to commit perjury(because she knowingly lied to the husband and other parties about the paternity of said child) and the government should make paternity fraud a punishable offense by way of sending both the woman and her illegitimate partner to prison without bail. Because it is a massive breach of trust and legally marriage is a contract and if one party goes against the terms of the contract there has to be consequences.

Scientifically, there are traits/genes that are passed on from father to children. Imagine giving birth to a child with epilepsy, sickle cell anemia, schizophrenia or any other mental health issues which is not found in the family? Let not even go towards the aspect of criminality like kleptomania which is also hereditary.

Paternity fraud is evil and should be completely condemned. Infact people should serve life sentences for it.

Secretbloodline:
Nonsense. A lion begets a lion and a goat begets a goat. Did you know Ifa Oracle is 99 percent accurate and only God knows 100 percent? Ifa Oracle is a male divination system invented by Orunmila an ancient Yoruba priest who obviously was a mathematician.

My j2 haplagroup is the same as my father Gerald de France and my great uncle John Henri de France the patriot, my forefathers in Flanders Merovingian Project all tested positive for J2 haplagroup. I tested positive for j2 haplagroup whilst in the US military Medical Center. A huge percentage of Creole men are descendants of King Louis and the original French Kings, Holy Roman Emperors, Kings of Poland, Sweden and Belgium. We share the same bloodline as the Palestinians who are paternally j2 haplagroup and the Spanish Crypto Jews in Mexico and Central America.

Funny guy
Keep deceiving yourself, making stuff up in your head😂 King Louis, Palestinians, haplogroup!
Here's real life below. Real life New Orleans Creoles like yourself, telling you that they are a mixture but mostly Sub-Saharan African blood.
One even posted her DNA test for all to see: 60% West African blood.
But whatever floats your boat. If conjouring up narratives in your head on Nairaland is how you get your kicks, then by all means...

Louisiana Creoles talk about their African ancestry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXpvm0e3DBI?is=G-f3lysQeidNC9EX

QuinQQ:
That's not what we're discussing here.
What we are discussing is unwarranted DNA fishing expeditions.
Remember we don't know that there had been infidelity. What we do know is that a man accepted a child from infancy, bonded with the child, and has been happily raising the child.
"Uwarranted DNA fishing expedition" is years later suddenly going on DNA amidst all that.
The state's concern is to discourage such, and encourage that the man saves his money and simply and happily keep raising a child that knows only him as farher and is very likely his biological child!

That was not what your topic read.

DMCA:
yes, that is why it is called peace of mind kit, especially if ur type says dey are pregnant for him.

Peace of mind. So throughout human history DNA didn't exist there was no peace of mind?
Can't you just see that a child you've raised from infancy to teenage years is your child? Can't you see that it is pure insanity for a Nigerian man to spend 100's of thousands on DNA for such child? R u ok at all??

QuinQQ:
Peace of mind. So throughout human history DNA didn't exist there was no peace of mind?
Can't you just see that a child you've raised from infancy to teenage years is your child? Can't you see that it is pure insanity for a Nigerian man to spend 100's of thousands on DNA for such child? R u ok at all??

leave history joor
ur forefathers use to trek to travel, why u come d enter motor when u dey go journey?
is that not waste of money and insanity?
are u ok at all?

LordReed:
There is nothing like unwarranted DNA fishing expedition. Our legal systems allow for any dispute to be resolved through testing. You are simply being stubborn and myopic. If anybody wants to contest paternity they are legally allowed to. You want the state to curtail our legal rights? This is myopic nonsense please. Come to your senses man!

You are the one myopic and needs come to your senses. Can't you people just see that a child you've raised from infancy to teenage years IS YOUR CHILD?! Can't you see that it is pure insanity for a Nigerian man to spend 100's of thousands on DNA for such child?? Are you people okay at all?

The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help you do what you ought normally do - which is save your money and focus on raising your precious child!

QuinQQ:
Funny guy
Keep deceiving yourself, making stuff up in your head😂 King Louis, Palestinians, haplogroup!
Here's real life below. Real life New Orleans Creoles like yourself, telling you that they are a mixture but mostly Sub-Saharan African blood.
One even posted her DNA test for all to see: 60% West African blood.
But whatever floats your boat. If conjouring up narratives in your head on Nairaland is how you get your kicks, then by all means...

Louisiana Creoles talk about their African ancestry

Omega Psi Phi fraternity Prince Hall, You're in here defending your frat boy Farrakhan son of most these men's enemy. So you're saying that if your Nigerian wife is pregnant for a white British man then you'll step up and play the Dad? Well that's the same thing as Farrakhan's origin and the offended man walked away and never looked back. The punishment for adultery is death but if the offended man chooses to walk away and leave the woman that is considered mercy and forgiveness. The child is not his to raise and since the child is his enemy's child as a man he's entitled to extract justice or show mercy. You love twisting the truth.


## The Secret Affair and the Birth Surprise
In a landmark 1996 interview with Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. for *The New Yorker*, Farrakhan detailed the truth behind his family origins:
* **The Affair**: Farrakhan’s mother, Sarah Mae Manning, was an immigrant from St. Kitts. During a temporary separation from her dark-skinned husband, Louis Walcott, she had an affair with a white British man named **Percival Clark**.
* **The Revelation**: Manning did not inform her husband about the affair. When Farrakhan was born, his very light skin and straight hair instantly exposed the biological reality of his parentage. Though biologically a Clark, he was named Louis Eugene Walcott after the man his mother initially tried to start a life with.

bentenny:
You are contradicting and confusing yourself.

In your initial post,you had insisted that a man must accept a child he has bonded with even if he later discovers that the child is not his.

You now recanted by saying if a man discovers child is not his but 'still accepts' the child,should not later disown the child sighting DNA test.

In the first post,you are compelling the man to accept his father role despite discovering a deception but in your latest post,you are saying the man has the right to decide to accept the child after discovering the deception but cannot later change his mind.

These are two different things.
The good news is that you have finally opined that a man cannot be compelled to raise a child after discovering he has been deceived.

This is one HUGE problem with NL - you may be debating someone who can barley comprehend what they read

WHERE in the posts did you see anything about "after DNA test"?? The thread is about banning DNA test for minors! Don’t you see the heading??

Both posts say the same thing!!! Which is - once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising the child to adulthood (18), rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on a DNA test! Capisce?

CzarChris:
Interesting! Actually the government should make it a law that DNA tests has to be a must upon the birth of the child. Because first of all legally it's paternity fraud, breach of trust, and conspiracy to commit perjury(because she knowingly lied to the husband and other parties about the paternity of said child) and the government should make paternity fraud a punishable offense by way of sending both the woman and her illegitimate partner to prison without bail. Because it is a massive breach of trust and legally marriage is a contract and if one party goes against the terms of the contract there has to be consequences.

Scientifically, there are traits/genes that are passed on from father to children. Imagine giving birth to a child with epilepsy, sickle cell anemia, schizophrenia or any other mental health issues which is not found in the family? Let not even go towards the aspect of criminality like kleptomania which is also hereditary.

Paternity fraud is evil and should be completely condemned. Infact people should serve life sentences for it.

But this is NOT about parternity fraud. Remember, we don't know that there's been any adultery. This is about govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD!! And making laws that encourage him to focus on raising that precioous child to adulthood (18), rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests!

Remember there haven't been DNA tests throughout human history yet we have somehow managed to survive. All those diseases you mentioned can also be hidden in the lineage of someone you married. Also the opposite can also be true - the child could carry greatness genes

IamAsiri:
That was not what your topic read.

The thread is about the govt recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, that is his child!!! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to adulthood (18), rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on DNA tests! Capisce?

DMCA:
leave history joor
ur forefathers use to trek to travel, why u come d enter motor when u dey go journey?
is that not waste of money and insanity?
are u ok at all?

No, it is very helpful to have a car. What is not helpful is spending massive amounts of money trying to create a problem where none exists - trying to prove that your child is not your child. Suppose you are wrong, what does that say about how much you trust your wife??

Secretbloodline:
Omega Psi Phi fraternity Prince Hall, You're in here defending your frat boy Farrakhan son of most these men's enemy. So you're saying that if your Nigerian wife is pregnant for a white British man then you'll step up and play the Dad? Well that's the same thing as Farrakhan's origin and the offended man walked away and never looked back. The punishment for adultery is death but if the offended man chooses to walk away and leave the woman that is considered mercy and forgiveness. The child is not his to raise and since the child is his enemy's child as a man he's entitled to extract justice or show mercy. You love twisting the truth.


## The Secret Affair and the Birth Surprise
In a landmark 1996 interview with Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. for *The New Yorker*, Farrakhan detailed the truth behind his family origins:
* **The Affair**: Farrakhan’s mother, Sarah Mae Manning, was an immigrant from St. Kitts. During a temporary separation from her dark-skinned husband, Louis Walcott, she had an affair with a white British man named **Percival Clark**.
* **The Revelation**: Manning did not inform her husband about the affair. When Farrakhan was born, his very light skin and straight hair instantly exposed the biological reality of his parentage. Though biologically a Clark, he was named Louis Eugene Walcott after the man his mother initially tried to start a life with.

So you know Farrakhan's history. Doesn't change the fact you're full of West African blood as a Louisiana Creole.

As for white kid, that's why the caveate that the man must have accepted the child AND bonded with him for several years!! That makes him his son and the law ought recognize no DNA can change that. He had the option of rejecting the child ab initio!

addictiv:
You are still avoiding the central issue. You say nobody is hiding anything, but that is exactly what the DNA test is meant to establish. If nobody is hiding anything, the test will confirm paternity and the family continues normally. You cannot assume there is no deception and then use that assumption as the reason why nobody should be allowed to verify it.

Even the state does not simply accept your word when identity, money, citizenship, employment or legal responsibility is involved. It asks for passports, birth certificates, bank statements, biometric checks and other evidence. That is not because everyone is automatically considered dishonest. It is because important claims require proof.And what claim is more important than being told that a child is yours and that you must carry the emotional, financial and legal responsibility for that child for life?

Your comparison with asking whether you exist or whether I am dreaming is just a distraction. Paternity is not a philosophical question. It is a specific biological fact that can be tested accurately and has direct emotional, medical, legal and financial consequences.

You also asked why a man should seek certainty about something that could disrupt a child’s life. The answer is simple. The test does not create the problem. The conduct that produced the false paternity created the problem. You keep blaming the discovery instead of the deception.

That is like saying a woman should never check her husband’s phone because discovering his affairs could destroy the marriage. By that logic, the cheating is not the problem. The discovery is.

You also keep claiming that no benefits were given, even after they were clearly explained. Confirmed paternity gives the child an accurate family and medical history. It gives the man certainty before committing decades of emotional and financial responsibility. It protects an innocent mother from years of suspicion. It can also reveal that the presumed father is not the biological father, allowing the truth to be investigated.

Of course a basic paternity test does not magically identify the biological father if his DNA is unavailable. Nobody claimed it would. It establishes whether the tested man is the biological father. That information alone is important. Once non paternity is established, a maternity test can be considered and if positive, the mother would be in the best position to explain who else could be responsible.

You ask whether people who do not know their biological fathers have all died. That is another weak argument. People have survived without knowing their medical history, without education and without modern medicine. Survival does not mean the missing information has no value.

And nobody is saying a man should suddenly wake up after thirteen years and casually destroy his family for entertainment. My position is the opposite. DNA testing should be compulsory at birth precisely so that this issue is settled before years of bonding, sacrifice and emotional attachment.

You oppose testing at birth, then complain that testing after thirteen years could destabilise the child. That contradiction is exactly why routine testing at birth makes sense.

Your suggestion that a man should simply look at the child is also ridiculous. Children do not always resemble their fathers. Some look more like their mothers, grandparents or other relatives. A child can look like a man and still not be biologically his. Physical appearance is not a scientific paternity test.

Telling a man to wait until the child turns eighteen is even worse. You want him to spend eighteen years providing emotionally, financially and legally before he is allowed to know whether the basic information used to place him in that role was true.

Why eighteen? Does the truth suddenly become harmless on the child’s eighteenth birthday? Would discovering the deception after eighteen years not be even more devastating for the father and child?

The state should protect children, but protecting children does not require protecting deception or forcing adults to live in ignorance. The better solution is early testing, counselling, responsible handling of results and legal protection for the child.

Like I have always maintained, a man may still choose to raise a child who is not biologically his. That can be a powerful expression of love. But the decision must belong to him.

You cannot secretly remove the choice, call the resulting ignorance a happy family and then blame the truth when the lie is finally exposed.

Long read.
So "the test will confirm paternity and the family continues normally". How about trust for your wife. What does it say about your trust for you wife spending all that money- money u don't have - on a goose chase?

I never said I was against birth DNA test. You made that one up.

Can't you people just see that a child you've raised from infancy to teenage years IS YOUR CHILD?! Can't you see that it is pure insanity for a Nigerian man to spend 100's of thousands on DNA for such child?? Are you people okay at all?This thread's suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help the man do what he ought normally do - which is save his money and focus on raising his precious child the best he can!

CoolUsername:
Notice how I never said anything negative about adoption? That is because in the case of adoption or where a sperm donor is used, the parents KNOW and CONSENT to what is going on. In case of paternal fraud, they can be LED ASTRAY based on familial medical history because they have FALSELY ASSUMED that the child is related to the father.

Do you understand now?

But we don't know wether thete is parternal fraud or adultery. What we have is a man bonded with a child from infancy to teenage years still wanting to spend 100's of thousands on DNA. Our take is that the govrt ought discourage him from doing that and encourage him to instead focus on raising his precious child to maturity!

Josbreed:
You have not answered, will tou refuse to carry DNA test if you CLEARLY have doubts about the children your wife claim to be yours?

Ok, you don't understand. What we are discussing is a man who accepted a child and has bonded with him for several years! Our take is that that's his child and no DNA can change that. The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help him do what he ought normally do - which is save his DNA money and focus on raising his precious child!

QuinQQ:
This is one HUGE problem with NL - you may be debating someone who can barley comprehend what they read

WHERE in the posts did you see anything about "after DNA test"?? The thread is about banning DNA test for minors! Don’t you see the heading??

Both posts say the same thing!!! Which is - once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising the child to adulthood (18), rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on a DNA test! Capisce?

Stop changing the goalpost.
In your first post,you made it an obligation for a man to accept a child that is not his.
You even went further with the argument using this phrase 'It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!'

You later changed your argument by admitting that 'It is entirely up to the man to decide if he'd accept the child.'

Both do not say the same thing unless you are having issues comprehending your own posts.

bentenny:
DNA testing exposes fraud.
DNA testing makes mothers accountable.

Accepting a baby is by choice not deception!

If a man must father a child no matter the age,it must be by his own volition not through compulsion or guilt tripping!

But this is NOT about fraud or mother's accountability. This is about the state recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on a DNA test!

QuinQ:
But this is NOT about fraud or mother's accountability. This is about the state recognizing that once a man accepts a child and bonds with the child for several years, THAT IS HIS CHILD! And there ought be a law encouraging him to focus on raising that precious child to maturity rather than spending time and 100's of thousands on a DNA test!

Was the man aware that was his biological child before accepting?
If he was aware that wasn't his biological child but still went on to accept,that's a totally different thing which doesn't align with your first post where you insisted that

if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
'It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!'


These were your words.

Secretbloodline:
English is weaker than French but a bastard is still a bastard.


Historically, a child born to parents who were not married to each other—including children born from an adulterous relationship—was legally and socially referred to as a bastard.While this word was once a technical legal term, it is now considered an offensive slur and is no longer used in modern legal or social settings.Historical Legal DifferencesHistorically, old English common law drew a sharp distinction between different types of non-marital births:Bastard / Illegitimate Child: A general term for any child born outside of a lawful marriage.Adulterine Bastard: A specific historical legal term for a child born to a married woman, but fathered by a man other than her husband.Under ancient laws, these children were considered filius nullius (the child of no one). They had no legal right to inherit property, bear their father's name, or receive financial support.

But you just described your own people, Louisiana Creoles. They came up mixed when mixed marriages were NOT allowed. But to me that makes them mixed race, not bastards. No human being is a bastard

bentenny:
Was the man aware that was his biological child before accepting?
If he was aware that wasn't his biological child but still went on to accept,that's a totally different thing which doesn't align with your first post where you insisted that

if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're obligated to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
'It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!'


These were your words.

Am I missing something here? Of course those are my words and they align with everything I've said. We don't know werher there have been infidelity or not, all we know is that he accepted this child and has raised him since infancy. Our position is that he can't suddenly screaming DNA years later The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help him do what he ought normally do - which is save his money and focus on raising his precious child!

QuinQ:
But you just described your own people, Louisiana Creoles. They came up mixed when mixed marriages were NOT allowed. But to me that makes them mixed race, not bastards. No human being is a bastard

You forget the French freed and married those women who are my maternal grandmothers. You keep the lie going that the French is white because you're working for the invisible white power structure. Any man of color involved with Freemasonry swears an oath to the crown of England. Sodomy rites are apart of the initiation into all Freemasonry this is how the Anglos Saxons conjure up Odin the father of Gods. The Prince Hall switch the deity to Osiris because their myth is they once ruled Egypt and Freemasonry came from Egypt. Prince Hall Freemasons and Greek organizations formed at university including Nigeria, all share the same homosexual rites to belong and appease the spirits. They all have myths and made up genealogies because they're essentially low born men and women looking to change their stars or destiny. But there's no way destiny can be altered so they become haters trying to steal the destinies of others. That's why you're promoting men accepting bastards because a low born like yourself seeks to rob another houses place, esteem and wealth. You feel it's okay for a woman to cheat on a man and have that man duped into raising his enemies offspring. Pure destiny swapping.

QuinQ:
Am I missing something here? Of course those are my words and they align with everything I've said. We don't know werher there have been infidelity or not, all we know is that he accepted this child and has raised him since infancy.
Our position is that he can't suddenly screaming DNA years later The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help him do what he ought normally do - which is save his money and focus on raising his precious child!

Yes you are not just missing something,you are also confusing yourself!
Your first post is an obligation to whether or not the child is biologically yours.
Your subsequent post which I showed you clearly stated that the man has the choice to accept the child if it's not biologically his.
If you had started with the latter,nobody would have had this lengthy,boring and unproductive argument with you.

bentenny:
Yes you are not just missing something,you are also confusing yourself!
Your first post is an obligation to whether or not the child is biologically yours.
Your subsequent post which I showed you clearly stated that the man has the choice to accept the child if it's not biologically his.
If you had started with the latter,nobody would have had this lengthy,boring and unproductive argument with you.

I HONESTLY don’t know what you're talking about. I suspect you are misreading what I wrote.
Please post the statements you're referring to and I will patiently explain everything to you

Secretbloodline:
You forget the French freed and married those women who are my maternal grandmothers. You keep the lie going that the French is white because you're working for the invisible white power structure. Any man of color involved with Freemasonry swears an oath to the crown of England. Sodomy rites are apart of the initiation into all Freemasonry this is how the Anglos Saxons conjure up Odin the father of Gods. The Prince Hall switch the deity to Osiris because their myth is they once ruled Egypt and Freemasonry came from Egypt. Prince Hall Freemasons and Greek organizations formed at university including Nigeria, all share the same homosexual rites to belong and appease the spirits. They all have myths and made up genealogies because they're essentially low born men and women looking to change their stars or destiny. But there's no way destiny can be altered so they become haters trying to steal the destinies of others. That's why you're promoting men accepting bastards because a low born like yourself seeks to rob another houses place, esteem and wealth. You feel it's okay for a woman to cheat on a man and have that man duped into raising his enemies offspring. Pure destiny swapping.

How can they free and marry your grandmothers under Code Noir that expressly forbade interracial marriage??

The problem with your talk on Freemason and homosexuality is that we know many comfirmed free masons who were presidents of US and non of them was anything near gay. So once again this is a case if creatung naratives in yiur head.

Even if I was low born (quite the opposite), so what? Please how is it my fault how I was born??

QuinQ:
Ok, you don't understand. What we are discussing is a man who accepted a child and has bonded with him for several years! Our take is that that's his child and no DNA can change that. The suggestion is that the state step in with laws to help him do what he ought normally do - which is save his DNA money and focus on raising his precious child!

I understand you perfectly, but the thing is a crime has been committed, PATERNAL FRAUD. It is a serious crime. So the state cannot step in to support a crime IRRESPECTIVE of the depth of the bond.

Josbreed:
I understand you perfectly, but the thing is a crime has been committed, PATERNAL FRAUD. It is a serious crime. So the state cannot step in to support a crime IRRESPECTIVE of the depth of the bond.

But this thresd has nothing to do with parternal fraud because it is NOT concerned with wether there has been adultery or not. It's very likely that the child is indeed the man's biological child!

QuinQ:
I HONESTLY don’t know what you're talking about. I suspect you are misreading what I wrote.
Please post the statements you're referring to and I will patiently explain everything to you

This confirms my suspicion about you having comprehension issues with your posts.
This was your first post forcing a man to take care of a child that is not his....

QuinQQ:
Simple resson: if you've had a child since infancy, he is your child and you're his father and you're 'obligated' to take care of that child till age of maturity. That's how Nature intended it.
It is NOT sperm that makes you someone's father!

Now read your subsequent post...

QuinQQ:
It is entirely up to the man to decide if he'd accept the child. But once he accepts the child and bonds with the child and have a settled family, he can't come out years later to start screaming DNA.
The state's concern is to discourage such uwarranted DNA fishing expeditions and have the man save his money and focuse on raising a child that knows him as his only father, a child that is almost cerrainly his biological child!

If the second post was your initial inclination,nobody would have bothered prolonging this thread.

QuinQ:
How can they free and marry your grandmothers under Code Noir that expressly forbade interracial marriage??

The problem with your talk on Freemason and homosexuality is that we know many comfirmed free masons who were presidents of US and non of them was anything near gay. So once again this is a case if creatung naratives in yiur head.

Even if I was low born (quite the opposite), so what? Please how is it my fault how I was born??

Down low lifestyle.