BlackCat1989 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Regardless of the fact that they most likely share zero DNA with any of the Jacksons, that doesn't matter....point blank period.To them, Mike was their dad.. It don't take sperm to be a father.. Hell, there's way too many single moms out there who's baby never grew up with their biological father, let alone any father figure...sure, they're white... What does it matter? Brad and Angelina have different race kids, Madonna, Sandra Bullock, Sheryl Crow etc etc.. But so many focus solely on the fact that they're not his biological children.. I get it though.. Mike so badly wanted people to believe that these were, in fact from his own DNA... Definitely hard to buy, but ultimately it's nobody's business where these kids came from.. I think being that Mike was literally the most famous celebrity to ever walk the face of this planet can give a little insight as to why he possibly didn't want them to be viewed as Zoo attractions..All that matters is that they were loved and raised to be well-mannered, bright, intelligent members of society.. Whatever has happened in their lives since 2009 is out of his hands.. I see your point. But the reason those other celebrities don't catch flack is because they never lied and claimed that the children they adopted were their bio kids. Mike did. And as a result his kids are the ones who now have to suffer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dal Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I see your point. But the reason those other celebrities don't catch flack is because they never lied and claimed that the children they adopted were their bio kids. Mike did. And as a result his kids are the ones who now have to suffer.right.. That's pretty much what I was saying.. But like I said, ultimately it isn't anyone's business.. He should've been more outright with it though imo.. Interracial adoption and artificial insemination back in the 90's still wasn't as mainstream as it was the following decade.. Maybe he didn't want to hear anymore stories about how he hates how own race or whatever... Who knows why he did a lot of the things he did.whatever the reasons though, he loved those kids probably more than he had ever loved anything else.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackCat1989 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 right.. That's pretty much what I was saying.. But like I said, ultimately it isn't anyone's business.. He should've been more outright with it though imo.. Interracial adoption and artificial insemination back in the 90's still wasn't as mainstream as it was the following decade.. Maybe he didn't want to hear anymore stories about how he hates how own race or whatever... Who knows why he did a lot of the things he did.whatever the reasons though, he loved those kids probably more than he had ever loved anything else..I have no doubt that he loved them. And no it isn't the public's business... But MJ was a huge public figure. So his personal business was the public's business... unfortunately. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dal Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I have no doubt that he loved them. And no it isn't the public's business... But MJ was a huge public figure. So his personal business was the public's business... unfortunately.while that may seem very true, at the end of the day it still remained his choice to divulge whatever details about his children as he pleased... I mean, there was no law in place or anything along those lines stating he had to do otherwise...but yes, I absolutely agree on the fact that he should've been a little more transparent when it came to things like this that would keep people talking for years and years (apparently even after he was long gone).. But I still must stress, he had no obligation do so............almost sorta reminds me of some scenarios that Janet has been through.. Meaning, it's up to them to decide what they want to share with the world.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackCat1989 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 while that may seem very true, at the end of the day it still remained his choice to divulge whatever details about his children as he pleased... I mean, there was no law in place or anything along those lines stating he had to do otherwise...but yes, I absolutely agree on the fact that he should've been a little more transparent when it came to things like this that would keep people talking for years and years (apparently even after he was long gone).. But I still must stress, he had no obligation do so............almost sorta reminds me of some scenarios that Janet has been through.. Meaning, it's up to them to decide what they want to share with the world..So true, I just don't think he maybe thought about what his kids would have to go through years later. Or maybe he did and that was one of the reasons he kept their faces hidden. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.