This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

15
16

Gay marriage (self.AskTrumpSupporters)

Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter が 投稿

Although I don't see Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned no matter how many conservative justices Donald appoints, I was wondering why some of you want that ruling overturned.

Edited: typos

並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]cool_but_not_coolModerator on a power-trip[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (0子コメント)

Racism/homophobia is allowed on AST.

However, civility and good faith are required.

Locked due to much rule breaking of rules 1 and 2.

[–]minyminaNimble Navigator 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (13子コメント)

The 10th Amendment clearly outlines that such issues are for the states to decide not the federal government. Taking that power away from states is a breach of the Constitution.

[–]throwingitanywayNimble Navigator 33 ポイント34 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Should any marriage be federally recognized? Should there be any financial/tax benefits from that status?

[–]Boner_HonkfartsUndecided 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (0子コメント)

In my opinion if it effects federal taxes it becomes a federal issue.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

That's a fair argument. That opens a massive can of worms though.

[–]throwingitanywayNimble Navigator 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's not really a fair argument (as related to this specific question) because if you apply that thinking to gay marriage then you absolutely must apply it to heterosexual marriage as well. The constitution does not discuss any marriage, let alone gay marriage specifically. If you want to overturn federal gay marriage rights and let the states decide, then the same must be done for heterosexual marriage, regardless of religious/personal views on the matter.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's what I meant by it opens up a massive can of worms. I just don't want to refute it. I think you could argue that because of precedents set in McCulloch vs. Maryland and Marbury vs. Madison that the federal government does have authority to make such decisions.

[–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I would assume that that person holds primarily libertarian viewpoints and would probably agree with you that heterosexual marriage should be left to the states.

Is that accurate? u/minymina

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What definition are you referring to?

    [–]minyminaNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You really have to ask, how far does is go until the federal government calls the shot on everything? Second amendment, Drug laws, abortion, health, education. All of this is at risk. We can't allow the feds to take one inch of power away from sttaes states.

    Further more, liberals forcing things like gay marriage in states like Taxes or Mississippi will not win anybody over.

    [–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Fuckkkkkk I've had this argument so many times and I really don't want to do it so I'll just say what I said in another comment. You could easily argue that precedents set in McCulloch vs. Maryland and Marbury vs. Madison that the federal government has the authority to make such decisions.

    [–]minyminaNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    It doesn't though. The feds don't have that power. The states do.

    [–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Do you know what McCulloch vs. Maryland is? And do you know what Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is?

    [–]thirdparty4lifeNon-Trump Supporter 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    How do you feel about loving vs Virginia? Do you think that was governmental overreach and violated the 10th amendment?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (118子コメント)

    Well since true marriage can only be between a man and a woman gay "marriage" isn't really marriage. Although I'd like to see it repealed because I disagree with it, and we'd have enough liberal tears to power the planet for years, I am not sure it's worth it.

    This is coming from a Trump supporting college student who isn't religious so inb4 "muh religious old men values" arguments from leftists.

    [–]NorthVillaNon-Trump Supporter 79 ポイント80 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Why do you care about someone else's marriage? Like... your "true marriage" can be with a woman. But why do you care if someone else has the label?

    If anything, why is the government even in our married life? We should have 1 legal component for all the benefits/legalities/child stuff, and it should be called "partnership." Two consenting adults may form this "partnership." It's up to you then whether you get "married" or not.

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Because we can't let our society slide into further Degeneracy.

    LGBTQRSTUVXYZ123 is a slippery slope of Degeneracy

    [–]thirdparty4lifeNon-Trump Supporter 64 ポイント65 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Why is it degenerate? Why does it bother you so much what other people do?

    [–]NorthVillaNon-Trump Supporter 49 ポイント50 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why is it degeneracy?

    [–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 84 ポイント85 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You can't literally admit that you're using a slippery slope fallacy. It's just absurd.

    [–]erbanlegendNon-Trump Supporter 72 ポイント73 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Its because men kissing makes his pants shorter and he feels weird about it.

    [–]BTFOthrowawayNon-Trump Supporter 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (109子コメント)

    If your hang-up isn't religious, then what is your issue with gay marriage?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (108子コメント)

    It's not morally of socially right imho.

    That being said the law has decided at this point that gay people can get married. I don't hold gay people down because they are gay, I just don't think they can actually be married.

    [–]BTFOthrowawayNon-Trump Supporter 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (65子コメント)

    Why isn't it morally or socially right for gay people to get married?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (64子コメント)

    Because marriage is between one man and one woman. That's the way life is.

    Gay people getting married isn't real marriage.

    [–]uhh_idkUndecided 51 ポイント52 ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Because marriage is between one man and one woman. That's the way life is.

    People used this exact same argument to argue against interracial marriage. Back in the day, someone marrying a person of another race was touted as "unnatural." How is your stance any different?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (11子コメント)

    It isn't.

    [–]uhh_idkUndecided 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    It's not any different? So wait, you're against interracial marriage as well?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    I'm not against it to the same degree, but I wouldn't let my future daughter marry outside our race.

    [–]matchiNon-Trump Supporter 54 ポイント55 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Thanks for the link

    [–]NicCage4lifeNon-Trump Supporter 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    What about marriage between one man and multiple women?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    That is wrong.

    [–]uhh_idkUndecided 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Your core argument as to why gay marriage is wrong is that it's "unnatural" and "marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman." However, if you're against polygamous marriage, then you are contradicting yourself.

    For one, evidence points to humans being naturally polygamous animals. Secondly, polygamous marriages have historically been common and just as accepted as monogamous marriages in many societies and cultures.

    How do you reconcile these contradicting viewpoints?

    [–]Remove_AncapNon-Trump Supporter 23 ポイント24 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    "Countless societies across the world for thousands of years were doing marriage wrong, but NOW we've got it right, I'm sure of it".

    [–]BTFOthrowawayNon-Trump Supporter 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (31子コメント)

    If you don't subscribe to any religious dogma, then why do you believe marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman?

    And, if it's just the word "marriage" that you have a hang-up on, should gay people have an equivalent that would grant them the same legal status that marriage does?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (30子コメント)

    Because marriage between one man and one woman is the natural working of things in a prosperous society.

    Yes if gay people had something similar to marriage that would work, but it shouldn't give them the privileges that a marriage does. Marriage and familys make good people. Gay "marriage" and gay "families" do not.

    [–]BTFOthrowawayNon-Trump Supporter 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Because marriage between one man and one woman is the natural working of things in a prosperous society.

    Marriage was between one man and one woman in all previous prosperous societies, but the legalization of gay marriage is so relatively recent that it remains to be seen whether gay marriage and a prosperous society are, necessarily, incompatible.

    Yes if gay people had something similar to marriage that would work, but it shouldn't give them the privileges that a marriage does. Marriage and familys (sic) make good people. Gay "marriage" and gay "families" do not.

    Could I see a source that points to children raised by a pair of gay parents to be worse off than a pair of straight parents?

    [–]avantvernacularNimble Navigator 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    You believe that you are justified in playing god with social experiments on entire populations when you, by your own admission, have no data on what the consequences may be? That doesn't seem incredibly reckless to you?

    Also, perhaps you should take note that the legalization of gay marriage and/or normalization of homosexuality has occurred in the past. Perhaps you should do more homework.

    [–]crabpotkiwiNon-Trump Supporter 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There have been many times in history when homosexuality was normal... ancient Greece and even not that long ago in Japan it was common for royalty to have male concubines.

    The view we have of marriage now isn't as old as time... its as old as 200 years or so. Institutions can and should change as societies too but its dangerous to foist your ideals onto others because who knows when the same can be done to you.

    [–]BTFOthrowawayNon-Trump Supporter 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    I have a source that I was going to present when he presented his. He made a claim, and I expected him to back it up before the debate went any further. As for that source, here:

    "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families."

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I don't care enough to reply at this point. Happy Holidays, and Merry Christmas

    [–]BTFOthrowawayNon-Trump Supporter 43 ポイント44 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Understanding isn't achieved by either us when someone ducks out because debate gets too hard. All I've done up to this point is ask you why you hold the views that you do.

    Oh, and Merry Christmas.

    [–]NorthVillaNon-Trump Supporter 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Actually, I know someone who was raised by 1 man and 1 woman and he is a complete asshole, and is now a drug addict. I also know someone raised by 2 men, and she is one of the nicest people I have ever met and is very successful in her career.

    Doesn't that already disprove your absolutist worldview?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    There are exceptions to everything

    [–]NorthVillaNon-Trump Supporter 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Right. I agree. So do you have data and statistics to prove that what I say is not just an exception, and what you say is the norm?

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Because marriage between one man and one woman is the natural working of things in a prosperous society.

    This has not been borne out by data into successful child-rearing or family dynamics in psychology research. At best, you would be able to argue that it is neutral or harmless, contributing nothing without denigrating the sanctity of the institution. There's also at least 1:1 ratio of toxic and harmful heterosexual marriages to homosexual marriages, too. We don't see a 50% marriage success rate as somehow proof that heterosexual marriage isn't best for children, despite the actual statistics on children of divorced parents being disadvantaged in any number of negative metrics, e.g. depression, chances of educational success, ego integrity.

    All of your arguments are pat and not supported by facts as it stands.

    [–]Spectre24ZNon-Trump Supporter[S] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    This was insightful, what are you?

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Just a Psychology BA, with an emphasis on Personality research and a minor in Philosophy.

    [–]jjBregsitNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    While I have read what I assume to eb the same study ,that pointed out behavioral problems in same sex couple children are only very slightly more possible compared to regular couples (biggest difference was with single parent households), it should be pointed out that the study's main verification of "good raised children" were - no social issues (friends and no fights in school or similar) no behavioral issues (depression , anxiety etc).

    What most people view here as properly raised children is stereotypical male and female gender roles. Also I am curious about a long term study about the fertility rates of children raised by same sex couples compared to regular. Basically can SSC raised children keep a social structure needed for Keynesian economical model. And before you say regular couples are not doing it right now i will agree although I believe it is due to different factors.

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I'm glad to see you're aware of the single parent distinction, which is indeed what research has found is the only real parental constraint (we're talking correlation of >.20) that consistently leads to more negative outcomes. I can't provide you data with regards to economic stability in SSC; I suspect even proving correlation - to say nothing of causation - would be extremely difficult in that field. The very fact that we have to reach so far to find examples of SSC being an objective negative in child-rearing/social stability at large should be a huge argument in favor of not restricting their marriage. Indeed, if they are legally allowed to raise children regardless, should we not promote stability in their relationships in allowing for a stronger union replete with all the benefits it entails?

    [–]Grsz11Undecided 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You're confusing procreation and marriage.

    [–]BranchOfTheTreeNon-Trump Supporter 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    But there have been and still are numerous prosperous societies where marriage has been between 1 man or woman and multiple wives or husbands.

    [–]littlebigcheeseNon-Trump Supporter 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Two people of the same gender can love eachother; this isn't unnatural.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

    [–]crabpotkiwiNon-Trump Supporter 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    I feel like this is going around in circles. Your morals seem to align with the same morals the religious institutions use to say marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    If your morals don't come from religion where do they come from with regards to this topic?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Well they come from the simple fact that a marriage between one man and woman is the natural order of things.

    Being gay, and gay marriage is not natural. It doesn't work as an actual marriage. That doesn't mean gay people a bad, but they aren't natural either.

    [–]crabpotkiwiNon-Trump Supporter 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Marriage isn't natural at all. It's a man made institution / invention.

    Sexuality is a lot more fluid than that. Man + woman = baby. Yes this is true. But throughout history there have been varying views on homosexual relationships. It was fairly common in ancient Greece as well as Japan. To them that was the "natural order of things".

    It becomes hazardous to foist your views onto other people... as what is stopping them from doing the same to you?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I disagree. Anything besides heterosexuality is unnatural and wrong.

    [–]crabpotkiwiNon-Trump Supporter 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    If homosexuality was unnatural why would it exist then?

    [–]flavorravenNon-Trump Supporter 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Not trying to be smug, but you've used the word "natural" a bunch of times in your argument. Are you aware of the "Appeal to Nature" fallacy and the reasons why that is considered a fallacy?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I'm not familiar with that fallacy. But I'm happy to her what someone has to say about it.

    [–]flavorravenNon-Trump Supporter 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's bad reasoning because it bypasses the need to explain why something should be a certain way by only saying that it typically is that way in nature, and it makes the assumption that the only correct purpose of sex is reproduction. This is especially faulty because every person in modern society lives their life in a multitude of ways that go against nature (i.e. Medicine, your thermostat, the ability to fly, the use of chemistry etc) and before you argue that those things are all taken from nature and used by man to suit our own purposes because of our brains, I could say the exact same thing about dicks and butts so if you're going to argue that consensual gay sex is immoral for a stated reason other than religious doctrine, you're going to have to come up with something better than appeal to nature because it doesn't explain what makes it moral and it's not consistent with the rest of your life (since you're writing this on the internet, also not found in nature). Also, it's not even true in nature - there are homosexual individuals in every species that has reproductive sex.

    [–]uhh_idkUndecided 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well they come from the simple fact that a marriage between one man and woman is the natural order of things.

    How is this the case, when marriage itself isn't even a natural thing? It's a man-made construct.

    Being gay, and gay marriage is not natural

    Homosexuality is a natural occurrence that is observed in many different species. And again, straight marriage technically isn't natural either since humans came up with it.

    Also, how do you feel about polygamy? Because historically, that was a pretty common type of marriage as well.

    It doesn't work as an actual marriage

    Prove it. You must not know any same-sex couples if you honestly believe that. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples are astronomical. Why do they "work" more than gay couples?

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is both a tautology "It can't be because it isn't" and a fallacy re: appeal to tradition. Both aren't persuasive when you're trying to argue.

    [–]trans-atlantic-fanNon-Trump Supporter 16 ポイント17 ポイント  (25子コメント)

    Why is it not moral?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (24子コメント)

    Because being gay isn't natural.

    [–]flavorravenNon-Trump Supporter 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (21子コメント)

    Of course it is. It's not biologically productive, but the desire two dudes or two chicks feel to bang each other is not artificial. Basically everything else about our daily lives is unnatural, from the beds we wake up on, TV's, phones, cars, jobs, money, deodorant, processed food, yadda yadda yadda, but seriously there are few things in our life more natural than our innate desires. Straight dude here, but I don't doubt anyone when they say they didn't choose to be gay because I never chose to be straight.

    [–]avantvernacularNimble Navigator 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    You two seem to have two definitions of natural. Yours is along the lines of "anything that occurs in nature, like trees and rivers and killing and such," so by your metric one could say getting cancer or being raped is natural. His on the other is closer to "the meh isms by which an organisms, species, etc. survives, thrives, reproduces, expands, and essentially perpetuates itself." Therefore, homosexuality - particularly perpetually homosexuality - is extremely unnatural.

    [–]flavorravenNon-Trump Supporter 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Ah yeah. Natural as in of nature. Not natural as in biologically productive. It's actually way more biologically and economically productive on a macro level for a small percentage of individuals not to produce kids (especially if OP thinks they are mentally disturbed as he said in a comment elsewhere) considering overpopulation is already a problem. But I'm actually done trying to convince that dude. He said in another comment that he wouldn't let his daughter marry out of their race and while I came here to engage with Trump supporters, that shit is particularly disgusting to me and while I think his fallacious logic is probably the root of his immoral outlook on life, I am not equipped to change his mind.

    [–]avantvernacularNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    He said in another comment that he wouldn't let his daughter marry out of their race and while I came here to engage with Trump supporters,

    So? That doesn't have anything to do with the logic of what he was speaking in here.

    I think his fallacious logic is probably the root of his immoral outlook on life,

    I just explained to you how his logic isn't fallacious, and to him and probably billions others, it is your outlook on life that is immoral.

    I am not equipped to change his mind.

    No argument there. You need to be able to step outside your own framework to have a change at that.

    [–]flavorravenNon-Trump Supporter 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Alright, so you're saying (or you think he's saying) that not being biologically productive is immoral and that's why gay people shouldn't marry. Should people with no intent to have children be allowed to marry? Should someone who is fertile be allowed to marry someone who is sterile? Should two people who are sterile be allowed to marry? Honestly I think there are less logical flaws in his initial argument than in your adaptation. What is immoral about consensual sex and/or long term relationships of any label between two adult human beings of legally sound judgement and personal agency? What is harmful to the person? What is harmful to society at large? (assuming here that you believe homosexuality is a relatively rare non-hereditary genetic mutation like the world of science)

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Gays are mentally disturbed. That's why they like it up the ass instead of being a normal human being.

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    You realize you have to offer more evidence than the fact that it offends your moral sensibilities. The #1 barrier to progress is people trusting that their gut feeling somehow is justification for denying a desired right from a vulnerable minority population.

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I don't actually. This is "asktrumpsupporters" not "convince Trump supporters"

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 25 ポイント26 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Sorry, let me clarify my "have to"

    You have to, if your goal is to be persuasive in conversations with people who challenge your beliefs. If you're not particularly bothered with logic and don't care if your arguments are flawed, then yeah you're more than welcome to walk away. Just know that this issue means something to a lot of people, and it's disheartening to see someone emblematic of what stands in their way simply throw up their hands and say "Eh whatever".

    [–]trans-atlantic-fanNon-Trump Supporter 27 ポイント28 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Heterosexuals like it up the ass too. Anal stimulation is natural.

    You never had a girl lick your asshole? Too bad for you...

    [–]drinkoffthisNon-Trump Supporter 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You would have to prove to a reasonable satisfaction the normative claim that "Being unnatural is immoral"

    Which would place a great many medical interventions under fire like chemotherapy, vaccinations, and the like. Not to mention any genetically modified food you consume, and any number of products that defy natural order but increase your happiness or convenience.

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm not trying to convince anyone. This is asktrumpsupporters. Where people can ask questions and get a trump supporters thoughts. This is not r/convincetheotherside

    [–]tryingtobecivil43Non-Trump Supporter 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (14子コメント)

    Donald Trump isn't morally or socially right, but here we are.

    You have more of an issue with gay marriage than with a guy who:

    1. Make sexual comments about his own daughter.
    2. Wouldnt denounce David Duke, of the KKK
    3. Birther
    4. Tweets every time he gets offended
    5. Married an ex soft core porn star (not knocking it, I'm liberal, idgaf but trump supporters don't recognize their own hypocrisy)

    I could go on, but for one to disagree with gay marriage on social and moral grounds, how the FUCK do you justify Donald Trump?

    Edit: word

    ALSO, saw your comment on not letting your future daughter marry outside her race. Just checking, but you do understand that women aren't property and you can't let or not let her do anything, right? Like are you saying you intend to take your own daughters free will and bodily autonomy because of your dislike of other races? Is that good parenting to you?

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (13子コメント)

    I voted for Trump because I believe he will put America first and establish further law and order. His personal life is not of concern to me.

    Yes my daughter would have her own free will. And I would have free will to cut contact with her if thats what I chose to do if she married someone I didn't like.

    As for whether its good parenting? Well if she wanted to marry a respectable black man who believes in family values they would have my 100 percent backing. But if she wanted to marry a subhuman nigger chimp I'd most definitely do everything in my power to show her that is a bad idea.

    [–]tryingtobecivil43Non-Trump Supporter 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Subhuman nigger chimp. -___-

    Now do you see why people think trump supporters are racist?

    You realize that you are the problem with America, right?

    You have formed these horrible beliefs about another race, but I would bet my life on it that you've never read a single book about race in this country, haven't spent time with minorities in minority communities. I doubt you've watched a documentary or done a quick google search on the atrocities of white men in the country and the deliberate actions taken by the all white government to destroy minority communities for decades to come. I bet you don't know shit about the school to prison pipeline, or how black individuals are given harsher sentences for the same crimes.

    I bet you believe that black people are on welfare the most, when in reality, its whites. I bet you live in a trailer park, with your guns and camouflage jackets, drinking beer and eating spam and eggs for breakfast. I bet you can't read beyond a 5th grade level and you like Trump because he dumbs it down for ya with "bigly" and YUGGGGEEEEEE. I bet you think black people are taking all the scholarships when in fact white GUYS are 40% more likely to get a scholarship than any person of color. I bet you don't know anything about Native Americans, immigration, African - American history. I bet you've never taken the chance to get to know a black person, yet you come to these absurd conclusions about people.

    I bet you didn't graduate high school, definitely not college and have never left your double wide. Matter of fact, you're probably good ol uneducated white trash.

    Or maybe you're not and it's fucked up for me to assume all that.

    But that fact that you've have the audacity (google it if you don't know what audacity means) to come out your redneck face and refer to someone as subhuman shows you're the literal scum of the earth.

    Edit: Ironic that his personal life is of no concern to you, but who people marry, is.

    Edit Edit: For the love of god, please do not reproduce.

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    All the things you assume about me are wrong. I'm a young college student. I do know and I am friends with several black people. You assume too mutch.

    [–]uhh_idkUndecided 59 ポイント60 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I do know and I am friends with several black people

    Do they know that you call black people "subhuman nigger chimps" behind their back?

    This is why people roll their eyes when they hear someone say, "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Not all black people are niggers.

    [–]tryingtobecivil43Non-Trump Supporter 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Okay, go tell all your black friends that you think using the term "subhuman nigger chimp" is acceptable and I promise you, you won't have black friends anymore.

    Also, thank you for showing that you're grossly lacking in empathy. How do you actually have black friends (lets be honest, you don't) and use that term.

    Also, was I correct in my assumptions that you aren't that educated on race relations in this country? What books have you read, mr. college educated?

    Edit: Not to be rude, but you're not a young college student. Young college students don't spell much "mutch"

    [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Believe it or not I am a young college student. I didn't say I'm smart.

    There are degenerates in all races. It just so happen that blacks have a higher rate of Degeneracy than other races.

    [–]tryingtobecivil43Non-Trump Supporter 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Proof? That's one hell of a statement to make without backing it up.

    I mean, point to any source that you've read on race relations. Just one. If you want to be taken seriously.

    [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]BranchOfTheTreeNon-Trump Supporter 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Would you be ok if your daughter married Trump?

      [–]CaesartheMusicianNimble Navigator 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yes