OccultIconoclast

It's like when you're having a conversation on autopilot.

"Mum, can I play with my frisbee?" Sure, honey. "Mum, can I have an ice cream from the fridge?" Sure can. "Mum, can I invade Poland?" Absolutely, whatever you want.

What about monkey head planet?

Cause it's fucking bullshit

Hello I'm the left's official spokesperson and I think I can clear up this confusion.

A woman is someone who wants to be a woman.

A husband is someone who wants to be a husband and has consent from the person they're a husband of.

Both of these words are identities, and letting people be who they want to be when it doesn't affect other people is one of the values of the left. So you can go ahead and extend this reasoning to all personal identities that don't harm others, and I think that answers your question.

Exotic didn't say a single word about legal advantages.

Ain't nobody should have to snitch to the cops about nothing if they don't want to. Shouldn't require marriage at all.

Also, if marriage isn't about love, then how come you can't marry your sister? I'm not advocating for sister marriage, I'm just pointing out it definitely is about love, and that's why marrying your sister is weird.

Abolish legal marriage!

That's bullshit. The government shouldn't be deporting people for refusing to participate in their system of regulating love. Just let people live where they want.

Marriage isn't a legal construct. The government doesn't have the right to own people's relationships. They can say they do, it doesn't make it true.

Thank you!

Just for shits and giggles, I'll try giving an actual argument.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton was right. It was her turn. She won the popular vote. I hate everything about that woman. I hate that she's part of a dynasty, I hate that she rigged the primaries, I hate that her campaign donated money to Trump because they thought radicalising the right would lead to an easy win.

But she was right. The people did want a woman president, and that's what they voted for. Walz is a really nice, genial guy. I like him. If he were a woman, I think he'd be a different person, or he'd not be a politician. Because to be a woman in the heart of the patriarchy, you need to be strong. You have to have unbreakable armour with no cracks. If the sexist system is challenged, then maybe the next woman president can be a nice person like Walz. But if we keep on having this system where women have to fight to be taken seriously and then aren't liked for being fighters, then we're never gonna have equality.

I don't really care all that much about how good Harris is with a spreadsheet. Her debate and interview performance is important to me in a primary, not in a presidential election. At that point, I'm thinking about the future. About the girls who are going to become women in government. I want them to have more role models. I care way more about that than if Harris is nice, or if her budget plan is perfect.

I think Harris can be what America needs better than Walz can. Personality is only important in an election, symbolism is important in the white house.

Okay.