Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3122 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/14/2014 6:13:35 PM

Red herring..... I'm not nor do the new laws require DNA to be on file.

Hardly a red herring; it IS the subject of this thread.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3100 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/9/2014 5:24:52 PM
And you are promoting that men that are not the father pay for children that are not theirs..... Whom is really wanting to control others?!?!?!

BTW I was doing the math on the C/S figures a man that pays 25% of his income and makes 50k will pay $225,000.00 in 18 years. And 25%is not the most he could be charged 35% is.... That would be $315,000.00!

Some of Madoffs victims didn't lose that again I'll say what you want to do to men that have not fathered children is no better than what Madoff did!

No one is promoting that at all. Mere mention of any understanding that the courts consider the effect on a child results in a flagrant display of hostility.

Your math is a bit strange. Federal Guidelines state "The support obligation is 18% to 24% of net income for one child, 28% to 37% for two children, 35% to 46% for three children, and up to 46% or 61% for six children. " Many are those parents who have arrangements outside of statutory, I believe more often than not. Actual dollars paid by a non-custodial parent is often less than suggested. I know you're exaggerating to make a point, but think a bit. Perhaps it is a difficult fight because your own "evidence" supports it. After all, it is very likely that the many of the men disclaiming paternity are avoiding cs, at some point for some period of time. Since 70% of them are potentially found to be in arrears, well I would think that would support a law which presupposes that the men are lying . After all, if 30% men successfully denying paternity warrants legal intervention on the basis that those women lied, certainly 70% of men who deny paternity not providing support would warrant the same.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3075 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/6/2014 6:19:06 PM

Now I'm suppose to give you more information about myself for you to either attack or call me a liar on. This is how I know you have no credibility when it comes to tsar either.

It was you who used the occupations of others to deem them unworthy of input here. Interesting, and likely quite telling that you assume you would be called a liar in regards to your occupation. What, you're a priest?!?! You ARE entertaining! Carry on.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3074 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/6/2014 6:16:00 PM

All you and cindy can do is attack me, my kid, and my ex girlfriend. Neither of you can effectively intelligently debate against my points.

No one has attacked the child you refer to as your kid, and it is you who refuse to intelligently debate. We've been sitting here watching you debate yourself. You are advocating for laws that would directly and adversely affect you were they to be enacted for both genders.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3065 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/5/2014 6:24:53 PM

F*ck you first of all. Secondly I should have a choice in the mater because it's my choice on if I wish to support her or not. You state how it's nearly impossible to find some of these fathers. Hers will likely never be found so what did I hurt? As far as what I've had to protect her from it's none of your god damn business.

Curious logic.

You just acknowledged how difficult it can be to locate a father, you admitted to paternity fraud, you've defended your right to privacy. You must be very dizzy!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3055 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/4/2014 5:58:48 PM

Am I overly aggressive when someone talks or even mentions my child? Maybe. I've had to protect her from a lot of sh!t.

From what I understand, though, she is not your child. She is someone else's child, whom you effectively stole. You are a deceitful perpetrator of fraud. You are aware of that, aren't you? and that you are arguing for the right to approach a court, 10 years from now, to deny this same child & refuse to continue to support her?
ARE you aware of that?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3054 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/4/2014 5:55:47 PM

You know as I read through these last posts I am reminded of how some will refuse facts no matter how they are presented.

You know, me too.

Notice that they never offer any positive solutions......they only want to hold the the old way that has been not only shown here to be a gross injustice...

If you mean solutions to the problem of women and men alike who are deceitful & who may (or may not) commit paternity fraud , I think it's pretty clear that some of us acknowledge how complicated an issue it is to "solve". The simple act of removing financial aid to a child doesn't solve the problem. The child suffers & there is no means presented by any of those in your camp for this child t then be made aware of who his/her father is. How many times does one have to post that we (I, at least) know it's not fair to these men, but life isn't fair. To fail to admit that at least some of these same men were likely aware that they were not the actual father is to present oneself as an embittered person with anger towards the opposite gender. Bottom line, I haven't seen you offer any solutions to the actual problem. The gross injustice here is that a child doesn't know who their father is & I haven't seen you offer any solutions for that. You have turned this into a sideshow, you & that weirdo who keeps posting under different names. This should have been a discussion about mandated DNA testing, but you have turned it into something else entirely, completely ignoring not only facts but reality.

And yes I will continue in these forums as it does my heart good to see the work I'm doing on this causing the abusers and their proponents so much distress.

I mean what are they going to do now....... They might just have to tell the truth and be honest....

That is immature & quite wrong. I, for one have no distress over this. I don't cheat don't lie, don't have children by different fathers, don't whore around, have no intent to deceive anyone . I work hard & take good care of my children, all of whom are smart, decent lovely young women of integrity & strong morals. Neither they nor I have ever been involved with a drug addict, criminal or otherwise disreputable partner. I will do now what I have been doing; feel sorry for the likes of you.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3048 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/4/2014 3:32:51 PM

You and your cronies have done plenty. If you saw the photo or bothered with any of the information I provided you would have seen the photo was of you.

Nice to have you hand over so much power to us; thanks! The info &photo links you posted show nothing more than that you are a complete azz.

Your profession proves you have no idea what your talking about yet you pretend to be some sort of authority that you aren't. You provide more misinformation than you could ever correct.

Quite a ridiculous statement. Not even worth further comment.

Takes an insane rambler to know one.

Note: INANE, so "s", hun.

No we only want after 122 pages and several years of your insanity for the actual fathers to be responsible fr their own children. As stated repeatedly by several male posters.

That's a crock! You have shown no inclination toward even seeking the actual fathers. Give that, by your own admission, 70% of men who deny paternity are found to actually be fathers, I guess we're not doing so badly with the current scenario. Simply keep denying paternity & continue being proven wrong.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3028 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 7:49:52 PM

False statement. You are promoting the exact opposite.

You have no right to deem my feelings "false". You don't get to decide what I promote, only to state that you believe that I may be promoting something.

For instance, I believe that you don;t give a rat's azz about equal rights; you simply want men, and men alone to be able to choose their degree of responsibility & the length of time they want to be held responsible. We don't have the civil right to "opt out" of many of our responsibilities.

It is very easy to put a slant on the words of another, isn't it?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3027 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 7:45:52 PM

Most women receive child support. Does that mean we should ignore the significant amount of them that don't receive child support as they should?

Of course not. Neither should we enact legislation that would make all men pay CS whether they have children or not. Your statement, btw is completely unrelated to the post to which you responded. Just sayin'.

Again if it's not their biological children they shouldn't have to pay.

That's your opinion, ok. On its' face, it's a statement most of us would not disagree with. We can admit, however, that it may not be so cut & dry, depending on the situation. We are entitled to have differing opinions, without resorting to childish accusations, inane ramblings the like. In any case, that is the most mature post you've made; congrats to you!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3025 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 7:39:59 PM

Default judgment means that someone can put your name down. That you do not know that you did not touch. Yet the court says "you did not come to the first hearing". So many of these men have said I didn't get the notice before they started taking money out of my checks. Process servers have actually been cross-examined. They couldn't tell you the color of the house or if they even served the right person. So naturally these men declared fathers by the stroke of a pen are upset. How do you defend a lawsuit that you never got the notice on?

Default judgement means that you didn't show up for your court date; nothing more, nothing less. Now you're insinuating that process'servers are in on the whole thing. You claim that the state is able to find these same men so easily to garnish their wages, yet can't locate them in order to serve them with court papers? BS. Such instances are rare. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this. Sure, "so many of these men" said this. These are the same men who are very likely to have bolted prior to the birth of what far more often than not turns out to be their child. Many of them are suddenly unable to be found in order to collect CS. Doesn't it seem funny that only those innocent men victimized by whorish women are in such circumstances.

I am holding the world's smallest violin.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3024 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 7:30:56 PM

You and your cronies had my profile booted because you didn't like what I had to say. I thought at first you were all the same person as you accused me and tsar of being. Then after looking at Cindy's picture I realized something. So I made a fake profile and messaged you and got your picture along with pank and all your cronies that have no pictures.

You're such a child! A liar, to boot You never messaged me, I never sent you a photo, never accused you & Tsar of being one & the same & I had nothing at all to do with having anyone's profile removed.

My profession has nothing to do with my input here. My participation in this specific thread is due to my strong feelings that our civil rights should be protected. I have every right to comment on the misinformation & anti female remarks posted here, no matter my occupation. So do you, no matter how infantile your input. Me thinks you might need an inch or two (heehee).
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3022 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 7:19:53 PM

It's only complicated to people like you who complicate it intentionally to further your B.S. agenda. Men don't want to be made to pay for children that aren't theirs. So stop making men that aren't biologically a child/rens father pay for them. Done and done.

I don't make men do anything, and I have no agenda. It seems you also can't see past yours though. Do you not admit that there are men who knowingly accept a child as their own, then want to opt out once their relationship with the child's mother fails? While this may sound fine as far as the man is concerned, aren't you able to see the position that looks at the impact on the child? Do you really think that all men are innocent victims of the town whores they sleep with? Do you really think that all men who fail to show for a paternity determination hearing were unaware of the hearing? I don't think you're that foolish. I think you are selfish & want to ignore the complicated issue that is reality.
It is not a fact that a man who denies paternity of a newborn is forced to pay CS pursuant to his requested hearing. It is not a fact that a man who isn't around for the birth but is notified of a hearing within 6 months is forced to pay CS. It is the man who treated a child as his own who may be forced to do so. Perhaps he was lied to & perhaps he knew or suspected all along but was too stupid to act upon his suspicions. I agree, it may not seem fair, but it does seem fair to the child he accepted as his own, thus it can be a complicated issue.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3021 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 7:02:07 PM

The rise is documented when men are notified most do show for court.

What is the problem, then? If they show & are proven not to be father shortly after the child's birth, and not having signed an acknowledgement of paternity, they are not forced to pay. Even if you say they are, we of sound mind know better.

You simply can't stop, can you?First you claim that the states hunt a man down to get his "extorted" dollars, then you claim the state is unable to find all these men who don't show up. You continually back up, spin & ultimately fall.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3019 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 6:54:54 PM

Exactly how is a study done by a blood bank not random?

Are you for real?! The subjects were self selected, hardly a random sampling. Those with low degree of confidence in their partner. It's not about agenda, and it actually furthers the studies you cite elsewhere. Higher degrees of non paternity are likely for those with low degree of confidence. Bottom line, choose your partner wisely! btw, is also points to the fact that many of the men you are defending knew, or should have known that the risk of the child carried by their partner was not theirs. If they took no action (did not petition court for paternity test or failed to show up for their court date), I am guessing there is a legal argument from that side as well. Were you able to remove the personal from this discussion, I think you'd clearly see why this is a complicated issue.

The facts ARE clear, very easy to find, and they contradict what you continue to say that they are. 30% is not considered a valid estimate by anyone except the activist male rights groups.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3017 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 6:45:02 PM

where you claim that women can't just put a mans name on a birth certificate. Well now your own sources say it is true.

So thanks for doing just what c4 done.....proved me correct

Your attempts to insult the intelligence of all participants fail miserably. What you said was that women can extort money from any man she pleases. You remain incorrect.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3016 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 6:42:11 PM

Really the best interests of the children would be served if they had an honest mother!

Certainly all children would be best served by having two honest, loving parent, particularly if those parents stay together, but that is off topic & simply an attempt to misdirect & insinuate that I have said the opposite. A bit immature, I might add.

Please show where I've called for mandatory testing....... Either show where I've call for it or quit lying about me saying such

Mandated DNA testing is the subject. Focus, man, focus!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3014 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 6:37:06 PM

Is this not exactly what I have been saying?

Not surprisingly, you omitted this:

"The cases were usually settled by forgiving the arrearage the man owed from failing to pay for months or years," Assistant County Prosecutor Laura Gallagher said. "Since the men weren't paying it as ordered in the first place, most mothers' budgets won't be devastated"

This is from the same passage now are you finely admitting this is fact or are you picking and choosing the "facts" you want to use?

Thank you for proving everything I've said was fact with this website.

Interesting that you say this, as if you were to delve a bit into your Kermyt Anderson a bit, you would see that his studies support what many of us have said. Men who choose to lay with disreputable women are likely to be lied to. For those men who had trust in their partners, no country had an incidence of non paternity greater than 11%. So I guess what you really support is lack of personal responsibility for men.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 3013 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/3/2014 6:19:09 PM

I've never called for mandated testing.....NEVER.....I have called for the ability of an accused man to determine paternity and if NOT the father to not have to pay for the test or the child.

Way to backpedal! "Accused" men already have the ability to determine paternity (actually, to prove themselves not the father), with time constraints. We can argue about that all day & most of us, certainly I, have stated that we acknowledge that it would seem unfair for a man to have to pay for another man's child. Having said that, most of us are reasonable enough to understand why a ma who has stood as father to a child for a period of time may be made to continue.

Again I've NEVER called for mandatory testing......... Why do you continue to try and say I do......could it be that you have no way to refute my POV

Are you aware that the topic at hand is mandatory testing? Oh, I forgot, you are too wrapped up in your agenda to focus on the topic!

Do a state by state search.... You will see it still happens in some states...... You forget I posted a case on exactly this that went to the California Supreme Court.
So if it never happens as you claim...... How did a case get to the CSC? There is reliance on ignorance but I'm not I don't post conjecture and bull butter I post facts.

I haven't claimed that it never happens; talk about spinning. I have continually & quite plainly stated that it doesn't happen to a degree sufficient to warrant mandated testing. The topic at hand, remember?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2997 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/2/2014 9:57:55 PM

I don't know if you are aware that the 30% number is derived from those fathers who already suspected they were not the father? This very select subgroup is actually a tiny percent of all fathers.

Thank you, Dragon for acknowledging this. Although it has been claimed that the 30% comes from blood testing of college students; a test supposedly performed in a classroom, sometime in the 1950's. Referred to during a speech once, but not a clinical study by any means. Still, expect to have this thrown back at you.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2996 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/2/2014 9:53:52 PM
-ALL states in the US offer to an unmarried couple establishment of paternity by signing a voluntary acknowledgement.
- In some states, that is the ONLY way an unmarried man can be placed on a child's birth certificate. In those states, a mother would have to go to court to have paternity established, were the father to refuse to sign or was not present.
- In those states where a woman can place a man's name on a birth certificate, or if a named father refuses to sign an acknowledgement, the state will initiate court proceedings to determine paternity. He will be notified of a date for proceedings whereby paternity would be established.

This is pretty simple, and it is factual.

I am certain that some number of men who voluntarily sign acknowledgements know or suspect that they may not be the actual father. Equally paternity fraud, yet understandable to some degree, complicated in a manner not unlike the laws that may "force" some of those same men to continue playing dad after they change their mind.
I am certain that not all of the men who miss their court date never received the notice. Men & women are equally deceitful, and likely commit true paternity "fraud" on a more equal level that some would like to admit.

I cannot use any of this, nor can I think of any other instance that would make me decide that mandating DNA testing is necessary, nor would be a good idea.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2995 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/2/2014 9:22:26 PM

No the 30% number that I mentioned and that c4 has backed up in her source is that 30% of children are not sired by the man they are told is their father.

C4's post actually shows all three of the studies made since 1949 that all show a 30% result. So are you also questioning her claim of 30%?

Absolutely, although I comprehend well enough to realize that it is not "her claim". Nice move, though! It is widely believed to be an inaccurate reference thrown about most often by activists. Worldwide, the figure is actually believed to somewhere between 1/2%, up to 30%, most likely in the range of 3%. The numbers, btw aren't related to paternity fraud, rather discrepancies between legal fathers & biological fathers, so the number would be slightly lower no matter the source of the data. Seeking out sources dear to your heart, Tsar will likely find you the results you want, but that is not fact finding.

Extortion, really? Such drama! Are you're sure not a woman?

Not complicated at all..... The actual parents pay for their own children...... See how simple that is. Of course all that requires is honesty from both partners.....which seems to be a problem for you and c4.....why is that?

You may think you're a master at twisting both words & facts but you are quite pathetic. Your leap from reality to accusations completely unrelated to the statements made by others is so far that I'm surprised you haven't fallen to your death.
Reality is that many actual parents, men & women alike, DON'T pay for their children, but that is not the topic here. What is complicated, from a legal standpoint, is relieving someone of a responsibility for a child they acknowledged, a responsibility they willing accepted for some period of time. In the case of marriage, yes, by virtue of not denying paternity, but still, an acknowledgement. The law that does so is complicated because we know that it may seem unfair to the men affected in most cases, but the best interest of the child is served. You don't have to agree with that tenet, but be man enough to say so, rather than hiding behind insults hurled at others that have no basis in fact. I don't believe that you are to stupid to comprehend this, I believe you are hoping that enough others are so as to further your agenda.

No that is not clear.......Why are you not willing to let the laws be equal for both genders? Why do women get to extort men.

Perhaps I was wrong, and you really are an idiot. Mandated DNA testing does not make laws equal for both genders. Women do not "extort" men legally no matter how your distorted view or personal experience led you to that conclusion. I'm sorry for you.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2993 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/2/2014 8:45:29 PM
My interest in this topic is that the ACTUAL PARENTS pay for their children.

So you say, yet mandated testing doesn't result in a determination of who the actual father is. As for your "facts", they consist of half truths, and ignore facts that are pertinent.

some people argue just to be right. They really don't care of they are right or wrong. For example:
How can someone use the phrase "Best interest of the child" yet argue against ensuring the child isn't deprived of knowing its natural father.... it's a contradiction within itself

Yes, most definitely your friend Tsar. You as well fail to acknowledge that mandated testing in no way ensures that a child will know who fathered them. You are entitled to your opinion & to your agenda, but at least be honest. There is no care for children in your agenda at all. No allowance for the fact that some men (see example "Navarro") treated a child as their own for many years, then, when things didn't go right between them & their partner, suddenly want to be absolved of a responsibility they willingly (perhaps knowingly, which cannot likely be established) accepted.

They can just name someone and the man becomes the punitive father.

That is not at all true. Easy enough to google, but I imagine you know this already & are banking on the fact that those who are ignorant enough to fall for it are likely already in your camp, so keep telling yourself that.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2983 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/1/2014 6:45:53 PM
Cindy is right for sure on this; You're So predictable! So completely unable to see past your own agenda, with total lack of empathy for the children involved, refusing to allow that men in these situations just might be a part of the deception, so willing to label any female who disagrees with your coldhearted, onesided view a misandrist. You are truly pathetic.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2982 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/1/2014 6:36:39 PM
Exactly what does this rant have to do with paternity fraud?
If the man is not the father there should be no responsibility for him..

I have decided that your problem is that you are unable to differentiate between a man who is not a father & a victim of paternity fraud. They are not one & the same.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2981 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 12/1/2014 6:29:10 PM
No you just don't like it because I call bull butter bull butter.

No, you really are just mean, and bitter.

Oh really? Go back and look at message 2903 I quoted what I was thanking you for admitting.
Again maybe you need to work on your comprehension or you could just stop spinning.

In post 2903, I agreed with you that mandated testing was uncalled for. I also said that I believed that a man's request for testing should be recognized, and that I believe that it is. Outside of marriage, where, btw a man has ample time to request a paternity test, paternity must be established in most states. I still believe that. Other than those cases where substantial time has elapsed, a man's plea for a court ordered test is honored. I looked it up by state, btw and that is what I'm finding. Your bad, not mine. I suggest your heed your own words & stop spinning.

The facts are in most states it doesn't matter if the test is denied or not. If the mother put his name on the birth certificate he's considered the father.

Simply untrue.

The facts are the laws require men to submit to a test if by court order if needed. There is no such law in most states to accurately obtain whom the father is.

Only if they can find him! Besides, you are skirting the direct point, which is that the number thrown around here, 30% of men determined not to be the father, is based on those men who deny paternity. Simple math leads to the determination that 70% of those men who deny paternity are found to be the father.

You also refuse to acknowledge the fact that in two different countries just the blood type results have shown that around 30% of children are not the offspring of the mothers husband. And blood typeing can only eliminate the chance of paternity not prove it..... So that means the number could be higher than 30% but couldn't be lower.

It is you who refuse to acknowledge that this "study" you cite is from the 1950's, never completed & never published. Pretty much meaningless no matter how you look at it. Even the widely quoted figures resulting from actual studies of 10% is estimated to be overstated, with more realistic numbers falling between 1-3%. I don't feel the need to bring this up, other than as evidence that it is an agenda rather than a fact finding that you seek, but it certainly is fodder for the argument against the need for a mandate. Lying about who fathered your child is wrong, no matter how skewed are the numbers, but I am not about to support allowing the government to intrude upon the lives of every individual for the sake of a few; more often than not, a few who should have known better.

What I'm calling extortion is just that. Why is a mother allowed in most states to make a man that hasn't fathered her child to pay for it?..... That is state sponsored extortion.

Coercion: the practice of obtaining money through coercion, using force or threats. Sorry, not buying it.

No I'm asking for the exact same degree of responsibility for both.
BTW the law makes a way for the mother not to name anyone the father and she can name a potential father to be tested....... But then that would require her to be honest and it would also keep her from automatically getting support from her husband and or the man she named.
Let's see how you spin that.
The reason you don't want to address my entire statement is if you do you can't spin what I've said.

Stating that you know the reason why I do anything makes you a pompous azz, but no matter... The truth is you made an excuse for a man, but no allowance whatever for the albeit it very few women who may actually have made a mistake. I'm guessing they often have blinders on, as do a few of the men who don't question, although they are well aware that they haven;t even slept in the same bed as the woman they married for several months, or lay awake waiting for her to come home..... I could venture a guess that about 1/2 of the marital paternity "fraud" cases were allowed to slip by seemingly unnoticed by both parties. Men & women alike are human; they are dishonest with themselves, as don't want to believe that which hurts them. It doesn't automatically keep her from getting support from her husband, as many men who are well aware that they are not fathers choose, (yes, they choose!) to act as such, at least for some period of time. You seem to want more options for men alone, with total disregard for the children affected.

Firstly I've not called anyone names. Secondly if the man has not adopted the children he should NOT have to pay their mother support for them.
Please explain how you think a step father owes child support for children he has not adopted or sired?

I never said he did. I said that I understand that it seems unfair but I also understand the law that, based on the best interest of the child(ren) may force him to do so. It is a complicated situation, and I have acknowledged that all along. Life is neither easy nor fair. Make your choices accordingly, that's all I'm saying.

And it is about equal treatment. That is all I want.
So what you're saying is you support the current system that allow the mothers to name anyone the father without any proof whatsoever.
A system that allows the wife to have another man's child and force her husband to pay for her infidelity.

Again anyone that can give a positive argument on why this system is best please do.
Please explain why the mother is allowed to make someone pay that has had nothing to do with the birth of her child/ren?

Vindication is not justice & equal may not be fair. Let's not forget that there are more than 2 people involved. The mother is not making someone pay, no matter how you spin that. The man either allows it, turns a blind eye, is foolish enough to trust someone whom he should have known better than to place his trust in, makes the choice along with her, or, in rare (yes, I said rare) cases is actually completely unaware. If I were to agree with you wholeheartedly I would have to assume all men complete ignoramuses. I know better.
Don't put words in my mouth. I understand the current system, and given that I don't see a plethora of paternity fraud perpetrated by women alone, coupled with my strong belief in both personal responsibility and protection of my civil rights, leads me to conclude that I can not advocate mandated DNA testing. Is that clear enough?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
Am I too needy?
Posted: 11/30/2014 5:15:57 PM

A child may do irreparable brain damage in many women so it's not uncommon that women with children are meaner and more easely offended or more passive agressive than single women

You made me spit my drink on the keyboard! Thanks for the laugh!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 241 (view)
wants to date but nothing serious.
Posted: 11/30/2014 12:05:05 PM
Nothing at all "mysterious" about your 4F's. Nothing commendable either, nor insightful, intelligent or pertinent. Simply a childish mantra of sorts that will never ensure favorable results as far as relationships go.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 15 (view)
Are we indoctrinating or teaching our kids critical thinking skills?
Posted: 11/30/2014 11:58:13 AM

Are we indoctrinating or teaching our kids critical thinking skills?

A bit of both (age appropriate) would seem to me the norm & likely not a bad idea.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2988 (view)
Posted: 11/30/2014 11:56:22 AM
Many scientists do realize & admit that not everything CAN be proven.

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science,"

Not saying either way, but the numbers of scientists who feel that discoveries & the inexplicability of same hint at God or some spirituality are growing. For those who adhere to this notion, there is no need to explain.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2969 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/30/2014 11:41:28 AM

I hate to be seeming to gang up on the guy. But maybe he doesn't comprehend that some of us are also participating in other threads where he has ADMITTED that he knows the child isn't his, but yet he is collecting child support from the mother..

Agreed, but it's hard to continually be insulted by someone who doesn't even seem to realize that he is defending the in loco parentis laws, all the while claiming to support those who would like to see them repealed. I don't believe he comprehends anything at all, including personal responsibility. "Young & dumb" doesn't absolve one of their responsibilities.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2965 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/30/2014 8:12:23 AM

You old hag shit faced brainless whore. Real special right? I think you take these forums a bit too serious for me. Chill the f*ck out a bit. I mean really.

Kiss your daughter with that mouth?

Your lack of comprehension is astounding, although not really a surprise. I do believe that you believe that you are doing the right thing for a child of a woman who clearly isn't/wasn't fit to be a mother. You did, however, find her fit for a roll in the hay. Birds of a feather, however trite, is not untrue. Poor kid, I wish her luck.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 226 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/30/2014 8:08:45 AM

Spin how you please. Mom was emotionally unstable that's why I broke it off. She was a child of a very nice and decent family. She had these issues in her past according to her parents who have been very supportive of me by the way. So when I went to the hospital at the news of the arrival the mom was high. My daughter was born addicted to cocane. She was abusing drugs during the pregnancy and when I talked to the mom if the dad wasn't me she had no other ideas on who it was. At that point CPS put MY daughter in my care. When I finally got her home and CPS and my lawyer filed everything to make it all legal and shortly before court time I sent off one of those dna kits from walgreens walmart and they are at several other stores. Came back that she wasn't mine. So when asked by the judge if I wanted a DNA test I said NO. I didn't have it in me to deny her.

It's not about spinning, and it's not about knowing you. It's about you taking the law into your own hands. Moral or not, why do you think you can play God? This child has a father out there, a father who likely doesn't even know he has a child. And if, 10 years down the road, you decide you no longer want the responsibility for this child, you advocate the legality of opting out. It doesn't matter if YOU would do this or not, as laws must apply to all. It should not be up to you to decide if this child should have the right to know who her parents are.

You jump from thread to thread spouting off about deceptive women & the moral high road, but you fail to see that the morality of the country is not in your hands.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 219 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/28/2014 5:00:59 PM
We weren't talking about legally were we? We were talking about right and wrong. What is legal is not always right and it's not always wrong. Many of the posts I have seen are argument for the sake of argument out of you. Someone states what is wrong and you go on about what is legal as if being legal somehow makes it right. Slavery use to be legal, and when it was, was it right?

Actually, we were, as I was responding to a post related to marriage which is a legal contract. You seem to think that only your posts are pertinent, even when they completely disregard the context of the posts relating to the topic at hand. You won't garner sympathy that way, only foster the image that you are incapable of comprehension.

No I view any unfair position or statement by a woman against a man as extreme feminism. Reason is feminism was meant to be fairness for all not just women. So when you take an unfair stance against men or other women you are taking an extreme one.

Only valid when it is YOU who defines "unfair". Basically any member of the female gender who doesn't view things exactly as you do is an "extreme feminist".

I shan't bother to quote any more of your posts, as quite honestly, they are nearly unintelligible & unrelated to those posts they claim to reply to.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the child to whom you refer as your daughter, actually the daughter of someone else? Some man who has been "defrauded", with the possibility of knowing his flesh & blood taken away from him by those who decided to be both judge & jury? Rights are only for those you deem worthy, I suppose.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2958 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:47:14 PM

No what many of these females are doing and this particular female is doing is using the law to make it right. You are talking about basic principles of right vs wrong. She is pushing a female agenda and taking it to a point of trying to make wrong into right just because it's legal. They have taken advantage of men in the past and wish to justify doing so. They probably would like to take advantage of men in the future and would like it to stay legal in order to do so. Just saying it's like arguing with the wall. Give up already.

You're full of it! I am "this particular female" and that's not at all what I am doing. If that's the way you read it, I suggest you go back to 1st grade. It's not legal , and according to your "cohort" here, it's a "serious criminal offense". It is disingenuous of you to suggest that I support paternity fraud. That you & your cronies continue to ignore the pertinent points here is evidence of narrow minded, immature reactions & ignorance, nothing more. I have 3 children, by one man, to whom I was married for 20 yrs. Sure, at my age, past menopause & with a tubal ligation, I intend to "take advantage" of a man in such a way! You're funny. You fail in your attempts to paint a picture of those of us with enough brains & the ability to remove our personal experiences from this situation.

No way I post mostly for entertainment. However I've had more than a few guys that have learned ways to protect themselves from these laws by using other lesser known laws.

This is why some here try so hard to silence me.
I have a friend that is a very good attorney. He has helped me protect my assets in a way that is really untouchable in a divorce.

and, you; you think this is a game, but you alone are the court jester here. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the azz! Paternity fraud is not a crime/it's a serious criminal offense; the laws protect women/ "lesser known" laws protect men? You're an embarrassment to yourself, and too much a fool to realize it.

Why would anyone want to silence you? The more you ramble, the better job you do of making an azz of yourself. Carry on, please!
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2949 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/26/2014 6:50:22 PM

No what many of these females are doing and this particular female is doing is using the law to make it right. You are talking about basic principles of right vs wrong. She is pushing a female agenda and taking it to a point of trying to make wrong into right just because it's legal. They have taken advantage of men in the past and wish to justify doing so.

You don't know what you're talking about! Not only has no one here defended fraud and have many, many times made that clear In case you haven't noticed, this thread is about mandated DNA testing. Just because some of us do not feel that the incidence of paternity fraud warrants such a mandate, that doesn't mean we defend it. If you are unable to grasp that, I'm sorry for you but don't step in here as if you know what I, or any other believes, with total disregard or inability to comprehend the discussion.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2948 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/26/2014 6:43:41 PM

I thanked you for admitting that a man can't just ask and get a paternity test.
You said that you didn't think so....... There is no way you could have thought this all along.

I know you are use to spinning but they are your words you don't need to spin your own statements.

Your problem is that you really are just mean, and bitter. It was not at all clear what you are thanking me for. In addition, it is not the norm for a man's request for a paternity test to be denied, although there is "statue of limitations" of sorts. As I've oft stated, I don't think this is fair on its' face but I understand why it is so. You seem unable to admit that it is far more common for a man to refuse a paternity test, & far more often than not a man who disputes paternity is actually the father. If we are to make laws "fair" it would seem, given the facts, that the laws would be slanted against men.

They already do..... In fact the state pays for their attorneys through child support recovery...... Even to the point of extorting money from a man that the state itself had proven that he is not the father.

Who's "spinning" now? Those men are NOT charged with paternity fraud, they are simple held responsible for a child, as are the mothers of those children, and there are many reasons why, although you choose to ignore them. Your incessant "extortion" ramblings are getting old. What you call extortion many would call being held responsible for your own mistakes, neglect, etc.

[quoteAgain spin...... Why didn't you post my whole statement? ...... Oh I known because then you couldn't cast me in a bad light.

What I said in message 2921 is.....

Actually men questioning paternity that turn out to be the father didn't lie...... They could have a very legitimate reason to question it.

However a mother knows if she was having sex with more than one man or not...... So if she was and just names one without testing she is committing paternity fraud...... By the legal definition...... Even if you don't acknowledge it.

So you can spin all you want that is not what I

I didn't need to address your entire statement, as the point is that you acknowledge that men can make mistakes, but you hold women to a higher degree of responsibility. They "could have" is exactly the same as that the mother "could have" reasonably believed that the named father was in fact the father no matter how you spin that. Or perhaps you believe that men are simply really bad judges of character. No matter, if we are to follow the information presented here, the fact that far more men than not are mistaken certainly is not fodder for an argument to mandate paternity testing. Basically, you are saying that men don't trust the women they choose as partners, and you say their distrust is legitimate. Yet they are more often than not mistaken in their mistrust. Not fraud, but certainly not evidence that women are rampant purveyors of fraud, nor that men need be protected by a government mandate from these deceitful women.

The fact is he was NOT THE FATHER! Yet even though he proved he wasn't they still charged him with child support........ He didn't adopt the children so he should have no legal reasons to pay them support.

There are agendas for sure....... Tell me why should any man that has proven he is not a child's father and has not adopted the child be
required to pay support for that child...... Unless he wants to.

That is not the only fact. We have all discussed & many have acknowledged the unfairness of a man having to support children not his own, still there is a basis that is not due to gender. It is certainly material to note whether this man accepted those children for a period of time, whether by mistake, poor judgement or whether he did so & now refuses to do so to get back at the ex. That is not an "agenda" equivalent to that which would purposely leave out facts & seek to assume women to be lying whores to such an extent as to request the government to provide protection of sorts, and that is what is going on here.

See this is why you are not credible in these debates....
We are taking about making the system equal for everyone...... Not asking for any special laws just make the laws not require someone that is not a parent to pay for a child that is not theirs.

That should be common sense.......

You try to pretend you are, but far from it, and you simply can't stand how transparent you are. Those of us here who try to actually be fair can see right through your thin veil. Common sense, if you were really interested in it, would tell you to stay out of the bed of a married woman, a woman who had 3 kids by 3 different fathers, not marry a women who cheated on her ex, etc. Yet you choose to ignore the reality of the circumstances of the vast majority of paternity fraud cases, and instead try to make this about equality. Disreputable persons & those who choose to associate with them aren't equal to responsible citizens. That, my friend, IS common sense.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 160 (view)
Ranty Pants
Posted: 11/25/2014 9:27:03 PM

I realize there are no moderators at this time tickle me pank. I still will not lower myself to insults. If that's you have at it. I really don't see how I blamed you or anyone else here for anything. You just got called out for your true lying and deceiving nature and for the bigot you really are. In other wards you and a few others don't actually buy their own bullsh!t they are selling. I won't respond but you are showing just how abusive you really are. I don't know you and you don't know me. Plus you start off saying you aren't insulting then begin doing exactly that. Just saying.

You long ago lowered yourself, with your broad condemnation, assumptive statements uttered as fact & disrespectful tone. I am hoping that you are drinking & will reread with shame. Just sayin'.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 159 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/25/2014 9:22:21 PM

So what you and the other ladies are really saying is if a woman has an epidural spends a few hours in labor and pops a baby out she stops being a lazy cow that's using me by magic. She also magically owed my support after the relationship. Amazing! It's like magic everyone!

Not one anyone but you is saying. Completely uncalled for, unfair & disregarded the bulk of the post responded to. How conveniently you passed over the part abut how men who stay at home are equal in regards to support, etc. It looks as if you have nothing more in mind than to further your own agenda.

I was about to get you guys to tell me how it would be okmif I sport f*cked you next but decided it would be taking it too far.

......and you're raising a daughter? How sad for her.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 158 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/25/2014 9:10:43 PM
Come on. If you made a million dollars while let's mock say we were together I'm sorry but I wouldn't feel right taking any of it much less half. You know what's right and what's wrong. Your using the law to justify horrible acts the same as some use the bible to justify doing horrible acts.

Come on. You know both genders are equally capable & equally show the capability for committing horrible acts. Humans justify those acts as righting the wrongs done to them. We are, or should be, fully aware that neither you nor I make a million dollars, under marital (and perhaps, common law marriage); WE make the million dollars. Why, then wouldn't we be held responsible for not risking it? Don't lie, don't cheat, and choose with utmost care. Being realistic isn't the same as justifying horrible acts. Quite likely the party taking "your" assets feels very justified in doing so.

Does it matter how long she was there? Really? To not work is a daily choice just like I choose to work daily. I choose to take care of my child myself daily. To allow her to live there despite her choice was my choice. To put all her choices on me because I choose to let her stay despite her choices is a cop out and you know it.

Legally speaking it might, and the onus is on you to know that. Ignorance is costly. When you "allow" someone to share your life to the extent that a marriage is created, the choice is "ours". That is not a cop out, it's reality. You sound as if you want the laws changed to suit you so as to avoid responsibility.

I have a problem with your extreme view of feminism

Might I suggest that you seem to view any statement that does not agree with your view as "extreme feminism"?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2932 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/25/2014 8:51:19 PM

I can tell you none it is not a criminal offense....

But, aren't you the one who posted.....

Paternity fraud occurs when a mother names a man to be the biological father of a child, when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father, or she intentionally does not state the name of the child's biological father on the birth certificate in order to either to begrudge the father, or to claim benefit, (see benefit at end of page). This is called "Paternity Fraud" and is treated as a serious fraudulent criminal offense (particularly in the UK, also in certain states of the US). However, a mother is permitted to not state the name of the biological father if (at the time of signing) she does not in fact know the name of the child's biological father.

to prove me wrong?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2930 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/25/2014 4:29:02 PM

So you have not admitted this all along

I believe that the two lines you quoted from me were from the same paragraph. I have stated all along that I don't feel mandated testing is required, and that I believe that men should and DO have the right to request a paternity test. I posted that I admitted this all along in response to a similar statement by another. Sorry if you misread.

No that is the definition of paternity fraud. You won't accept it but the court's do.

I guess we don't have a problem then, do we? As soon as the courts allow a woman to sue a men for fraudulently misrepresenting himself as sterile, the laws will be equal, right? In truth I think that's preposterous, but given your statement, what is it you continue to argue about?

]Actually men questioning paternity that turn out to be the father didn't lie...

Oh, yes I forgot, only women lie! I guess 70% of men who deny paternity are simply stupid.

And that proves you are wrong!

Your first case actually supports what I said. If they were married paternity wasn't a matter of her assertions, it was a matter of law. I don't think it's a mistake that the children's ages weren't noted, nor how long he acted the father. Then again, one can only assume that for the 2 yrs. after being ordered to pay CS & not doing so, the man requested the test only because of the contempt order. Where was he for those 2 yrs.? Certainly not protecting his own rights. I have said I understand the unfairness of such situations, but I also understand the tenet behind it. The ones who would suffer would be the children. I can imagine what site you got the "facts" from. Hidden agendas aren't very well hidden.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2918 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 8:43:22 PM

Tell me why do men have to accept being subjected to extortion to engage in a relationship?

Only those men who are very bad at choosing partners have to be subjected to extortion. As this thread has shown, it is far more likely that women will be subjected to lying men who refuse to acknowledge their own children, yet it is not women who are crying here about unfairness. Tell me why that is?
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2917 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 8:37:56 PM

Yet in most states that is not what happens in most states his wages will be garnished even though the state has proven him not to be the father.

Sorry, not buying it, don't see it. Show me. Only in those instances where a man has acted as a parent, accepted responsibility & actually supported a child do I see that courts have "forced" him to continue to do so. Not so as to favor a woman, but to not harm a child. Prove me wrong, please.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2916 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 8:32:49 PM

why do you consider it punishment for a woman to be truthful about who the father of her children are?

That is unfair; she defined "punishment " as having to be the sole support of child.

I don't doubt that a bit....... However it is still not being honest is it?

Not being honest doesn't equate to legal fraud does it? What is your point, as far as it relates to this topic?

She can go to the correct state agency and they will find him and have the courts order a paternity test.

Yet as I've shown even with a state test proving he is not the father child support recovery will make an innocent man pay for a child that is not his.

A man can refuse a paternity test. Most assuredly he will be forced to acquiesce, but certainly the law works similarly for the genders. The time element is not immaterial, for the women supporting a child alone. Those men who seek to shirk their responsibility are just as deplorable as are the women who intentionally seek to defraud a man, no? As shown by the numbers presented here, the vast majority (70%) of men who deny paternity are proven to be liars. I hardly think matters, legal or otherwise are slanted in favor of females.

With the same rape laws that prosecutes these crimes everyday

In regards to gender equity & simple humanity, how fair would it seem that the victim of rape would have to share custody if a child produced from that rape? Prosecution for rape doesn't exclude a "father" from parental rights.

That would be fine. However naming someone or letting their husband take care of a child that is not sired by them is not keeping quite.... It is by legal definition paternity fraud.

Are you saying it is acceptable for a woman to lie about the paternity of their child? a
And the law should allow them to defraud someone, just so they don't have to tell the truth of their promiscuity?

Not acceptable, understandable, just as many men understand & would rather raise a child not their own than have an unsuitable father do so.

As I stated earlier, this is not a simple issue & not specific to either gender, both are and can be involved in "paternity fraud" of sorts.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2915 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/24/2014 7:31:39 PM

Thank you for admitting this.
As I've said the laws are not equal and that is all I've ever worked for.

I've admitted this all along. For the most part, though, I don't believe that it is so much a matter of law as it is a matter of human behavior, The poster above you is an example of a man who willingly takes responsibility for a child not his own. I know this is not "fair", technically speaking, but it may well be n the best interest of the child. Who is to say that, 10 years from now, he will not become an embittered ex, deny the child, and what then? Do we charge him as an accomplice to fraud?

While I know life is not fair the paternity laws could and should be fair to everyone.

There has been some questions on the definition of paternity fraud.

So your claim that you have to prove intent is wrong. As it should be...... Any woman that has been having sex with more than one man knows that there a possibility any of them could be the father.
So claiming one is the father without testing is legally considered paternity fraud.

But it's not. That is your definition of paternity fraud. Were it true, women would be held to a higher standard than the rest of those accused of fraud. Legal fraud necessitates intent. "Possibility" does not prove intent.
Listen, I hear you, but legally speaking, if a woman states that she hadn't slept with the real father for two weeks or so in the time frame indicated by the birth date, how would one prove her wrong? I'm not saying there aren't women who commit such frauds, only that is difficult to prove.

This is a complicated issue, with no cut and dry answers, for sure. I can't imagine that there could ever be such a thing as paternity laws that are fair to everyone. People lie, people cheat, and for many, the most important part of this equation is the child. I don't think that either gender corners the market on deceitfulness, and that is part of the problem here. As far as I can tell it isn't so difficult for a man to obtain a paternity test via the legal system. I really don't see that the laws are gender biased. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I spent some time researching & I simply don't see it. To be honest, personal experience (not limited to my personal experience) is that a man contests paternity, then refuses the test, which seems predominant in these type of cases. Unfortunate but true. Far more men who deny paternity are proven to be fathers than not; I don't think you can contest that, and it hurts your gender.

This shows without doubt the system is not looking for the truth. They don't care if the women lie they will try to use these laws to extort money from anyone the mother names.

This shows without doubt one instance where the system treated someone unfairly. For every man who was treated unjustly by the system, there is a woman treated unfairly. It proves nothing as far as gender bias. I could show you a thing or two, but there is no point, as the system is not fair, no doubt about it, but it is not fair to anyone, no matter what you say. I've both seen & experienced enough to know that it is so. The system is simply looking for a way for those involved in the system to make money. Why take it out on each other?

When all is said & done, I can not fathom that it is reasonable or fair to subject every newborn to government mandated testing, that's all I'm saying.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 62 (view)
How much do you want to know?
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:24:24 PM

Anyways, is this a gender specific 'thing'? On a scale of 1 to 10 this may not be important but I'm just wondering what women are thinking. How much do do want to actually want to know about a man's past relationships?

I don't think so. As far as I am concerned, what is information today may one day become ammunition.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2901 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 6:19:38 PM

I have found nearly everyone that says "I certainly don't want to see the government step in." really mean they want the government to support their own agenda and not someone else's agenda.


Some want the rules on how the government steps in to stay the same, some think the rules should evolve as women have become more equal to men and DNA technology is now common.

I don't think this has anything to do with equality between me & women. Men will are not able to get pregnant & women are not able to get a man pregnant.

Personally, I think some of the laws need to evolve. I don't think it's justified to DNA test every newborn. Maybe just require testing when the supposed father requests it. Hospitals / doctors should inform the father when they discover he really isn't the father.

I agree with you on that. Perhaps it is true that a man's request for a paternity test can be denied, but I didn't think so. Certainly, if he is named on the birth certificate, he can take the child to a doctor for testing. If that is not the case in some places, then certainly he should have that right.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 138 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 1:51:06 PM

I suppose it comes down to an even more fundamental question, why is the religions ceremony of marriage a legal contract? I never understood that. It shouldn't have anything to do with the government.

Marriage predates written history. Certainly the power of the church played a role, but I believe it was Mass. (in this country) who first decided that they wanted a hand in marriage. Today, a religious ceremony has nothing at all to do with legal marriage. Marriage is a legally binding contract completely outside of the church. An optional contract, so no need to worry, you don't ever have to marry.
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2898 (view)
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/23/2014 1:38:45 PM
I can understand why some men feel outraged, sure. The "rabid" contributions to this thread however, have been either aimed at all women, or insults hurled at the participants.

You are quite right about most married persons, both & women who cheat don't tell their spouse. That doesn't make cheating okay, and that is what I believe she has been saying.

I am not "outraged" by the lies & deception of those men with whom I am not involved. I don't expect men who have no involvement with me to take their outrage out on me.

Courts don't make men pay women , they make them CS. I do understand that this isn't fair, and I also understand that behind these decisions is the fact that the 3rd parties involved, the children, should not be penalized. I don't have an easy answer & have never claimed to, but at some point we do bear responsibility for the outcome of our own relationships, and I certainly don't want to see the government step in. Sometimes we are victimized, sometimes foolish, either way I can't see reason to mandate DNA testing.
Show ALL Forums