#needed gay marriage to be legal

[atomicradiogirl]

yes house md as a show is outlandish and insane. house is literally a truman show of his own show. background characters are made out of cardboard, the walls are glass, he is just allowed to bully patients and his coworkers for funzies. but like there is also a deeply realistic element to house as a character. his actions are in line with his life, his backstory, and with his predicament. his chronic pain which lead to an opioid addiction, his childhood trauma, his trust issues that have definitely been shattered throughout his life leading to his cynicism, his refusal to seek mental support. of course the one constant and true trusting relationship in his life will also be codependent. this all makes sense. but this is also a show where house gets shot, gets recruited by the CIA for an episode, goes to jail multiple times. but it’s also a story about a deeply damaged man making the best of what he has and also learning to accept love? oh yeah and this is also a sherlock adaptation.

[helioleti]

Btw the idea of Zuko (who comes from a family that glorified their bloodline to the point of a god complex that it’s destroyed them each in their own way) deciding not to continue his royal bloodline & instead adopting Izumi (perhaps an orphan whose parents fell victim to post-war conflicts) is really neat actually

[anistarrose]

I think when a lot of queer people who aspire to marriage, and remember (rightly) fighting for the right to marriage, see queer people who don't want marriage, talking about not entering or even reforming or abolishing marriage, there's an assumption I can't fault anyone for having — because it's an assumption borne of trauma — that queers who aren't big on marriage are inadvertently or purposefully going to either foolishly deprive themselves of rights, or dangerously deprive everyone of the rights associated with marriage. But that's markedly untrue. We only want rights to stop being locked behind marriages. We want an end to discrimination against the unmarried.

We want a multitude of rights for polyamorous relationships. We want ways to fully recognize and extend rights to non-romantic and/or non-sexual unions, including but not limited to QPRs, in a setting distinct from the one that (modern) history has spent so long conflating with romance and sex in a way that makes many of us so deeply uncomfortable. And many of us are also disabled queers who are furious about marriage stripping the disabled of all benefits.

We want options to co-parent, and retain legal rights to see children, that extends to more than two people, and by necessity, to non-biological parents (which, by the way, hasn't always automatically followed from same-gender marriage equality even in places where said equality nominally exists. Our struggles are not as different as you think). We would like for (found or biological) family members and siblings to co-habitate as equal members of a household, perhaps even with pooled finances or engaging in aforementioned co-parenting, without anyone trying to fit the dynamic into a "marriage-shaped box" and assume it's incestuous. We want options to leave either marriages, or alternative agreements, that are less onerous than divorce proceedings have historically been.

I can't speak for every person who does not want to marry, but on average, spurning marriage is not a choice we make lightly. We are deeply, deeply aware of the benefits that only marriage can currently provide. And we do not take that information lightly. We demand better.

Now, talking about the benefits of marriage in respective countries' current legal frameworks, so that all people can make choices from an informed place, is all well and good — but is not an appropriate response to someone saying they are uncomfortable with marriage. There are people for whom entering a marriage, with all its associated norms, expectations, and baggage, would feel like a betrayal of one's self and authenticity that would shake them to their core — and every day, I struggle to unpack if I'm one of them or not. If I want to marry for tax benefits, or not. If that's worth the risk of losing disability benefits, in the (very plausible) possibility that I have to apply for them later in life. If that's worth the emotional burden of having to explain over and over, to both well-meaning and deeply conservative family members, that this relationship is not one of romance or sex. (Because, god, trying just to explain aromanticism or asexuality in a world that broadly thinks they're "fake" is emotional labor enough.)

Marriage is a fundamental alteration to who I am, to what rights an ableist government grants me, and to how I am perceived. I don't criticize the institution just because I enjoy a "free spirit" aesthetic or think the wedding industry is annoying, or whatever.

[awakefor48hours]

Here's your yearly reminder that korrasami is not an "ambiguous" relationship and they did not "just hold hands"

See you guys again next year.

IDs in alt

[razzle-zazzle]

betrothal au is so funny actually. jay & cole are still beefing because of the love triangle, except cole has been engaged to skylor the whole time. chen made sure that cole and skylor's rooms are next to each other so kai has to look to the balcony on the other side of cole's to make googoo eyes at skylor. skylor unintentionally cracks kai's egg. kai sees cole and skylor doing a lil waltz in the courtyard one night and immediately joins jay in giving cole the stinkeye over lunch. chen sees cole and skylor sneaking off and gets one of his underlings to play romantic music in whatever room they go to. clouse suggests just using a love potion to ensure cole turns against the ninja but chen wants that to happen organically because he thinks it's funny/more satisfying. cole and skylor make up stupid pet names that make no sense. soap opera level drama. chen going all bridezilla for what should be his daughter's special day, bc he's chen.

it's all so funny. to me <3

[rolandkaros]

i've been ruminating a lot on it because i think i'm bad at putting my thoughts into words but i need y'all to understand that while there are absolutely a lot of Not Good Things about the finals being held in saudi arabia for three years...the way people seem to treat is as morally black and white is shortsighted and unhelpful.

realistically the players traveling there will be protected. it may be uncomfortable, it's certainly not ideal, but they will travel there for a few weeks, play their tennis, then leave. there are a lot of women, a lot of queer people who actually live in saudi arabia who cannot just leave, who are actually subjected to laws and social climates...and to me it just seems very disrespectful to that actual lived experience, for everybody to sort of turn their noses up and get on their high horses. of course, if the players wish to opt out, that is their choice, but that is their choice to make. that's their judgement. not ours.

and then, what about a tournament like miami? florida is literally experiencing one of the worst active regressions that i've seen in the us (granted i'm young). things like critical race theory and lgbtq+ ed are being removed from curriculums, rights for trans youth, trans healthcare, etc. are going backwards. abortion rights? gun violence? and yes i know that the laws and climate in saudi arabia are different gravy, i understand that, but my point is, no one would ever DREAM of arguing against hosting a tournament in miami despite all of these issues. and we can extend this to a lot of other tournaments! i mean, all the outrage about fifa hosting a world cup in qatar, but we don't have any of these sentiments about doha? i've seen other people bring up that the finals were hosted in singapore when gay marriage was still illegal there. we've already talked about italy's fascist prime minister. and i could go on and on and on about the war crimes of countries like the us or the uk - is the us not participating actively in genocide right now? where is the standard? if you argue against hosting the finals in saudi arabia for the reason of human rights, to me it seems you have to uphold that standard for the location you do land on. and i can guarantee, you will not find a single country in the world with clean hands.

i want to be clear i am not arguing that hosting the finals in saudi arabia is a good thing, especially for three years, especially because it's definitely going there because of money, and not for any of the "good" reasons i think some people want us to believe about "improving the region" (which is very weirdly white savior-esque anyway). i don't really have an official "conclusion" to this discussion.

what i am arguing is that i think a lot of the protests against saudi arabiahosting the finals are more an example of implicit anti-arab bias and islamophobia, rather than genuine discussion. key word implicit: i don't think most people are purposefully trying to be anti-arab/islamophobic. or at least, i'd like to believe nobody is. but i also think, particularly in the west, there is already so much of this xenophobic sentiment ingrained. and this is why i think it's really really REALLY important to check ourselves when we talk about it instead of just jumping straight to the human rights conversation without a second thought.

i'll say it plainly: i don't think the finals should be held in saudi arabia. but for me, it has more to do with sportswashing, with the dangers of the way money is thrown around in sports, and because i think it's more evidence that the wta doesn't care about player welfare but rather about making a profit (what else is new). human rights are absolutely a concern of mine, but how is it fair to hold saudi arabia to a standard that we don't seem to care about for literally anybody else?

literally look at the us's ugly ugly history, past and present, and tell me why we deserve to host a tennis tournament.

[heretherebedork]

I love Thailand's BL media and their gay marriage agenda. It's one of their finest features.

[tacagen]

dont know whether zixx is a bishop clone or not? a 100% accurate test: put a wedding in front of him and see what he does.

[twpsyn-who]

Thinking about Steve and Eddie waiting for the right time to propose to each other and they somehow do it at the same time.

And they don't know that the other wants to propose, nor do they tell the same people. Nancy and Jonathan know that Eddie wants to propose to Steve. Robin and Dustin know that Steve wants to propose to Eddie. The reason why Steve hasn't said anything to Nancy and Jonathan was because it felt a little bit weird to talk about it with your ex and her partner. On the other side Eddie KNEW neither Robin nor Dustin could keep a secret from Steve he didn't trust those two with the secret and Eddie really wanted to be special.

They chose the same place to propose, too - the Lover's Lake because that's where everything began and they wanted to give that day a good connotation. Steve and Dustin and Robin has worked hard for a character sheet for Steve ; it was literally Steve if everything they had gone through was part of a DnD campaign but with the difference that he was married to 'Eddie The Banished' (Steve planned to give the sheet to Eddie and wait until he got to the married part until he asked "If you would have me?" and get out the ring). Meanwhile Eddie and Nancy and Jonathan worked on this album full of photos with the party together over the years (the kids through high school + the graduation photos ; the photos from their trips around the state ; Steve with either Robin or Nancy and Jonathan or Eddie or the kids or the Byers or everyone ; little moments and random photos with caption like 'First time trying pineapple on pizza!!!' or 'First date without the kids around') with the last photo being of Steve and Eddie (the very first photo they took together) with the question "Will you marry me?" under it.

They looked over them at the same time. Stopped to fucking process what was going on. Look at each other like two idiots. They took the ring out at the same time and I don't know if they started laughing or crying or arguing over who would propose but I can guarantee the answer was yes from them both.

BONUS : Meanwhile Robin & Dustin meet with Nancy & Jonathan while hiding near the lake and they all do the Spider-Man meme while questioning each other what they were doing there. Everyone fucking face palmed when they came to the conclusion that those two were going to propose at the same time. Pure gold.

2 x BONUS : Somehow Max knew about it and said nothing because she thought it would be funny (and was 100% right)

[sinaloasmash]

it pride month

bonus:

[castielfucks]

man we need to stop forgetting that gay marriage has been federally legal in the US for less than 10 years. and exactly 10 in the UK. if you are 10 years old, you have lived longer than most gay people have been able to get married. sigh.

[villainanders]

Just living in my mind palace rn but I think my canon Hawke and Anders did get engaged in the Act 2/3 break and set their date for like. a month after the Chantry explosion. so there’s at least partially an element of “so like could you not have waited or did you not want to go through with this or what”

[steevejr]

i literally don't understand how transphobia is a thing. like what does this have to do with you. huh. like i get anti gun control--ok you dont want to give up your gun. but what does someone else's deal have ANYTHING to do with you........... the mental gymnastics and justifications............. i hope all anti-trans politicians a very happy shoot yourself in the head (with a watergun for summer fun!!!!!!)

[bookofwambs]

a really dark thought occurred to me: what if byler does go canon somewhere in the middle of the season and will gets the happiness he deserves and the love from mike and they live out a cute little love story in the apocalypse

but he still sacrifices himself in the end and dies but bc he got to be happy for a bit, he got to be with mike after all even for just a little bit, it’s still a “beautiful and perfect” ending for him…

i need s5 now so i don’t have these thoughts.

[awakefor48hours]

I'm begging some of you to look up when gay marriage was legalized before going on long tangents about how certain shows "poorly handled" their queer rep.

[butchviking]

crazy that trans ppl not being allowed to transition is considered a 'fight for their existence' while gay ppl being told not to be openly gay isnt. like technically speaking neither of those things are about our existence, neither is some kind of genocide. they're both about the freedom to live our lives the way we want. why is one so much more vital than the other? why don't BOTH of these issues matter to the lgbt+ community or whatever?