Opinion of Californiadreaming

[Californiadreaming]

Appears to be genuinely mentally ill.

Evidence, please?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

We haven't interacted much, but he seems to be chill. A little too chill...

I kid. It's very good to have someone who can discuss thorny, complex issues at length calmly without resorting to the invective we so often see on this site. Solid FF.

[Californiadreaming]

We haven't interacted much, but he seems to be chill. A little too chill...

I kid. It's very good to have someone who can discuss thorny, complex issues at length calmly without resorting to the invective we so often see on this site. Solid FF.

Yeah, I certainly try looking at various issues from an honest perspective and am thus certainly willing to change my mind on various issues if necessary. Indeed, intellectual honesty is certainly extremely important! Plus, looking at various issues through partisan-colored glasses certainly isn't very constructive, productive, or intellectually honest!

[Californiadreaming]

Seems to be exactly the kind of social-liberal BRTD blasted me for warning against.

Why exactly did you warn against such social liberals, though?

If you're curious.

To be fair, though, in the current circumstances, I only support legalizing same-sex polygamy/polyandry.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

No more bolding words please. It's incredibly triggering.

[Californiadreaming]

Appears to be genuinely mentally ill.

Evidence, please?

Indeed, mental illness is certainly an extremely serious issue and not something to be taken lightly.

Thus, if you have evidence in regards to this, please present it.

[RI]

Seems to be exactly the kind of social-liberal BRTD blasted me for warning against.

Why exactly did you warn against such social liberals, though?

If you're curious.

To be fair, though, in the current circumstances, I only support legalizing same-sex polygamy/polyandry.

I can't imagine you could legally allow gay polygamy but not straight polygamy.

[Californiadreaming]

No more bolding words please. It's incredibly triggering.

Fine. I'll restrain myself in regards to doing this from now on.

[Californiadreaming]

Seems to be exactly the kind of social-liberal BRTD blasted me for warning against.

Why exactly did you warn against such social liberals, though?

If you're curious.

To be fair, though, in the current circumstances, I only support legalizing same-sex polygamy/polyandry.

I can't imagine you could legally allow gay polygamy but not straight polygamy.

Compelling state interest, no? Indeed, allowing straight polygamy could create a gender imbalance in regards to available dates and spouses. In contrast, this certainly doesn't appear to be an issue in regards to gay polygamy.

Also, though, I certainly oppose allowing any polygamous couple to actually adopt children on compelling state interest grounds. Indeed, we simply don't appear to have enough data in regards to the effect of this on children right now.

[Californiadreaming]

Indeed, doesn't China currently have a shortage of available women for straight men? If so, then why exactly can't the same issue occur here in the U.S. if we will legalize opposite-sex polygamous marriage?

[Californiadreaming]

No more bolding words please. It's incredibly triggering.

Fine. I'll restrain myself in regards to doing this from now on.

Unfortunately, though, it might take me a little bit of time to continuously remember not to do this. Indeed, sorry about that.

[RI]

Seems to be exactly the kind of social-liberal BRTD blasted me for warning against.

Why exactly did you warn against such social liberals, though?

If you're curious.

To be fair, though, in the current circumstances, I only support legalizing same-sex polygamy/polyandry.

I can't imagine you could legally allow gay polygamy but not straight polygamy.

Compelling state interest, no? Indeed, allowing straight polygamy could create a gender imbalance in regards to available dates and spouses. In contrast, this certainly doesn't appear to be an issue in regards to gay polygamy.

Also, though, I certainly oppose allowing any polygamous couple to actually adopt children on compelling state interest grounds. Indeed, we simply don't appear to have enough data in regards to the effect of this on children right now.

None of that matters because the exact same argument used in Obergefell to not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation would hold and the Supreme Court would legalize straight polygamy immediately.

[Californiadreaming]

Seems to be exactly the kind of social-liberal BRTD blasted me for warning against.

Why exactly did you warn against such social liberals, though?

If you're curious.

To be fair, though, in the current circumstances, I only support legalizing same-sex polygamy/polyandry.

I can't imagine you could legally allow gay polygamy but not straight polygamy.

Compelling state interest, no? Indeed, allowing straight polygamy could create a gender imbalance in regards to available dates and spouses. In contrast, this certainly doesn't appear to be an issue in regards to gay polygamy.

Also, though, I certainly oppose allowing any polygamous couple to actually adopt children on compelling state interest grounds. Indeed, we simply don't appear to have enough data in regards to the effect of this on children right now.

None of that matters because the exact same argument used in Obergefell to not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation would hold and the Supreme Court would legalize straight polygamy immediately.

The distinction between Obergefell and polygamy appears to be that we actually do appear to have a lot of data on how children are affected by being raised by same-sex couples, though.

[Californiadreaming]

Also, how exactly does legalizing same-sex marriage create a gender imbalance in regards to (the number of) available people to date and marry? Completely serious question, for the record.

[Californiadreaming]

Also, though, I will say this: If we will actually be able to successfully change people's (as in, adults') sexuality and/or gender identity, then I actually don't think that there is a compelling state interest in banning opposite-sex polygamous marriage. After all, the gender imbalance (in regards to available people to date and marry) almost certainly wouldn't hold up if people could voluntarily change their sexuality and/or their gender identity.

In turn, exactly what other arguments, if any, can actually be used to ban opposite-sex polygamous marriage? Completely serious question, for the record.

[Californiadreaming]

What exactly is with all of these HP votes?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

DIAF Rochembeau

[Higgs]

FF.

[Californiadreaming]

DIAF Rochembeau

I'm sorry ... what?

[Hash]

almost certainly a lame annoying sock but on the offchance it's not, very very ill

[Californiadreaming]

almost certainly a lame annoying sock but on the offchance it's not, very very ill

Is this due to my desire to get an orchiectomy? Indeed, I have just explained my reason for this desire of mine in the relevant thread.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Not a fan.

[Californiadreaming]

Not a fan.

Why exactly, though?

[Sopranos Republican]

Probably our old friend DevotedDemocrat tbh.

[Californiadreaming]

Probably our old friend DevotedDemocrat tbh.

Nope.