[ SECRET POST #3003 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

I looked up the context

[feotakahari]

They're gay Christians, and they're against "non-traditional families," by which they apparently mean in-vitro fertilization. The irony is killing me, especially since the Christian Post suddenly loves them.

Re: I looked up the context

[(Anonymous)]

I just... wow. I never knew the actual context before, just the "non-traditional family thing".

Re: I looked up the context

[feotakahari]

They're against "synthetic children," whatever that means.

Re: I looked up the context

[(Anonymous)]

oh come on. There's plenty wrong with their stance but pinning the whole thing on the possible implications of a word that has a history of careless colloquialization is just ridiculous.
I still believe that the word "Heteronormative" is bullshit, but I don't go snorting through every class of gender studies whispering to my neighbor how "they just said that our society is 'differently normed', lol!", because it's lexicalized bullshit, and that's hwo language works.

Re: I looked up the context

[(Anonymous)]

I need some more context - are they against all IVF, or against 3-parent IVF?

Re: I looked up the context

[diet_poison]

Are they against it for themselves/choosing to not partake for moral reasons and being outspoken about it, or are they trying to get it banned or something?

Re: I looked up the context

[(Anonymous)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolce_%26_Gabbana#Gay_Adoption_Controversy

Re: I looked up the context

[(Anonymous)]

... what did I just read?

Re: I looked up the context

[diet_poison]

That's really weird and very cognitive-dissonance-y.

Re: I looked up the context

[glo_unit]

Which is odd because one of them wanted a child by in-vitro.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-421672/Gay-designer-Gabbana-sex-parents.html

Re: I looked up the context

[(Anonymous)]

I find it hard to get really angry at them - their statements seem a lot like self-loathing more than anything. I kind of pity whatever they're feeling to get them to this point. It somehow doesn't strike me as a "let's protest them constantly" kind of thing for some reason, in the way that it would if they were straight people saying this. Idk.