case: ([ Snake; Moeface. ])
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2008-11-08 04:59 pm

[ SECRET POST #673 ]


⌈ Secret Post #673 ⌋

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

101.


__________________________________________________



102.


__________________________________________________



103.


__________________________________________________



104.


__________________________________________________



105.


__________________________________________________



106.


__________________________________________________



107.


__________________________________________________



108.


__________________________________________________



109.


__________________________________________________



110.


__________________________________________________



111.


__________________________________________________



112.


__________________________________________________



113.


__________________________________________________



114.


__________________________________________________



115.


__________________________________________________



116.


__________________________________________________



117.


__________________________________________________



118.
[Twilight Hotel]


__________________________________________________



119.


__________________________________________________



120. [posted twice]


__________________________________________________



121.


__________________________________________________



122.


__________________________________________________



123.


__________________________________________________



124.


__________________________________________________



125.


__________________________________________________



126. [not secret]


__________________________________________________



127.


__________________________________________________



128.


__________________________________________________



129.


__________________________________________________



130.


__________________________________________________



131.


__________________________________________________



132.


__________________________________________________



133.


__________________________________________________



134.


__________________________________________________



135.


__________________________________________________



136.


__________________________________________________



137.


__________________________________________________



138.


__________________________________________________



139.


__________________________________________________



140.


__________________________________________________



141.


__________________________________________________



142.


__________________________________________________



143.


__________________________________________________



144.


__________________________________________________



145.


__________________________________________________



146.


__________________________________________________



147.


__________________________________________________



148.


__________________________________________________



149.


__________________________________________________



150.


__________________________________________________



151.



Notes:

CITY STUFF → http://lolbuttsex.myminicity.com/

Secrets Left to Post: 14 pages, 348 secrets from Secret Submission Post #096.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

123

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 10:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Marriage is not a right. Marriage make-pretend crap. Civil unions is where it is at.

Re: 123

[identity profile] ronsard.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 10:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I could only accept this if all government-sanctioned marriages are civil unions, with all the related legal benefits. Opposite-sex and same-sex couples get the exact same treatment in the eye of the government.

Re: 123

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 10:52 pm (UTC)(link)
Sure, why not?

Re: 123

[identity profile] ronsard.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:11 pm (UTC)(link)
In this vein, however, I would like to point out that, as things stand, those of us fighting for same-sex marriage are only seeking for government-approved marriage for same-sex couples - not approval from the church. Therefore the actions on the part of the church to deliberately influence voters in the period leading up to Prop 8 getting passed, were, in my opinion, unconstitutional and abhorrent.

The church would not like to recognize the institution of marriage as anything except that between a man and a woman - fine, I can live with that. But the church and the right to religion should not interfere with people receiving their government-given benefits, like the right to visit their loved ones in hospitals and to be legally listed as next of kin. And in California, that's exactly what they did.

[identity profile] jaclynhyde.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 10:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Taking away the right of only one group to marry is still bigoted.

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Marriage shouldn't be something sanctioned by the government. They have more important things to care about rather than taking care of the people like if the people were nothing but little children.
pikabot: (Gold Roger)

[personal profile] pikabot 2008-11-08 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
You're such a unique, hardcore little snowflake.

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you very much! I'm proud of myself!

I do understand most people are too stupid and they need the government to take decisions for themselves. ;_;

[identity profile] dwinghy.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:09 pm (UTC)(link)
lol libertarian.

[identity profile] jaclynhyde.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:09 pm (UTC)(link)
That isn't the point. Would the right way to go about taking marriage away from the government be to say, "Okay, all interracial marriages--and only interracial marriages--are now null and void?"

Prop 8 has nothing to do about marriage in general, because there will never be a follow-up saying "Okay, now let's invalidate all the straight marriages." Prop 8 was about taking away the rights of gays, full stop.

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Sure, I just find this "battle" stupid and based only on ideals rather than on something worth fighting for.

[identity profile] jaclynhyde.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:19 pm (UTC)(link)
Say that to the gay people who want to get married, and want their relationships to be seen as valid as straight ones. The ideals are pretty goddamn important.

And that's not to mention the practical repercussions--want to see your dying significant other in the hospital? Want to file taxes together? Not if you're gay!

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)
"Wanting to see your dying significant other in the hospital" is the only worth-fighting for pro of marriage. I don't understand why don't people just fight for the benefits and be done with it.

[identity profile] jaclynhyde.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Because "separate but equal" didn't work so well the first time.

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Um that is what they are fighting for the rights and benefits that are bestowed on marriage by the government.

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)
No, they're fighting to be recognized by the government as a married couple. They're fighting for the idea and terminology rather than for the pragmatical.

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:39 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] ronsard.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-08 23:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-08 23:51 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-08 23:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-09 00:01 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-09 00:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-09 00:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-09 08:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-11 00:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] dots.livejournal.com - 2008-11-09 08:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] ronsard.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-09 00:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] ronsard.livejournal.com - 2008-11-09 00:12 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Marriage is not just a bunch of ideals, there are real benefits and protections that are given to married couples. (Things about filing taxes, immigration concerns, paid leave for sick spouses, issues dealing with hospital visitation and inheritance, not being forced to testify against your spouse in a court of law, or custody issues with children). The battle for marriage is for heck of a lot more than just living up to ideals, even if those are important too.

And let's face the government is never not going to recognize marriage it is too longstanding and too important as a social institution. Married couples would never go for it.

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 11:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Not only are those rather small benefits, you could also fight for the benefits, and only the benefits, without fighting for marriage. They still fight for marriage because it's a worthless fight and people like to waste their energy on them.

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Um, but if those are what make up civil marriage which is what the government does then that is what we are fighting for. If it quacks like a duck it is a duck. If it looks like marriage, it should be called marriage. Marriage is transfer of kinship, and recognized legal standing by the government. They are fighting with both, because the pragmatical is the same. As it was pointed out to you, civil unions are not the same and as such do not carry all of the benefits and standing.

(Anonymous) 2008-11-08 11:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Marriage is a ceremony. Marriage is a social standard. Why not just fight for civil unions to have the same benefits as marriage?

(no subject)

[identity profile] ronsard.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-08 23:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-08 23:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-11-08 23:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] kristenell.livejournal.com - 2008-11-09 00:05 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] bitter - 2008-11-09 19:56 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] jesidres.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:18 pm (UTC)(link)
The idea of marriage is a lot older than Christianity- in fact, marriage was exactly that, a contract to legalize the union of two people. There is ample evidence there were marriages of all kinds before your "religion" came along.

Crack open a history book- the bible doesn't count.

Re: 123

[identity profile] misty-days.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:03 pm (UTC)(link)
There're just a couple of... huge problems though (http://lesbianlife.about.com//cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm)

I agree with the sentiment that marriage shouldn't have the religious connotations but yeah. Sadly, right now, Civil Unions aren't all that. :|

Re: 123

[identity profile] lucia-tanaka.livejournal.com 2008-11-08 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)
If you're saying that we should toss out marriage and start doing just civil unions, I got your back. I think that'd be awesome. Marriage should be a ceremony, nothing more.

Re: 123

[identity profile] okapian.livejournal.com 2008-11-09 12:05 am (UTC)(link)
Studio 60 states my thoughts on the matter best:

"What's wrong with civil unions? And why shouldn't we -"
"'Cause there's no way to get to the end of that sentence without saying that homosexual love is something less than heterosexual love and watching you trip all over it makes me want to hit you on the head with Liberace."

Separate but equal does not work.

Re: 123

[identity profile] trustyoursins.livejournal.com 2008-11-09 02:07 am (UTC)(link)
Honey, I see where you're coming from, but please no.

For one thing, you're bright enough to realize that marriage shouldn't be anything decided by the government or the church in the first place. Grand. However, at the moment, it is. So any of the benefits married couples get are regulated by the church, who is deciding to deny civil unions those benefits. And now the government and church are deciding they can tell people what they are and aren't allowed to do, because right now, marriage is directly sanctioned by the government and the churches.

Think about your stance here. Government and the church shouldn't be in charge of marriage? Then that should be what's being fixed. Why abolish all marriage and only go to civil unions? The thing to do would be to disassociate marriage from the government and church, which is where it should be in the first place. However, until that is feasible -- which is probably not anytime soon -- shifting the law so that everyone has the same equal rights helps to shift things in that direction, and doesn't leave a ton of people feeling unhappy and spit on.

Also, no one's pointed this out yet, but I'd like to add... "make-pretend crap"? Fine. Maybe so. Maybe marriage isn't intrinsically any better than a civil union would be if they had all the same rights. But in our society it is a different thing. A major thing! Like giving birth to a child that is half your, and half your partner's genes! Or going to homecoming or prom! It's entirely fine for you to really not care about things like that, and even think it's stupid that society makes such a big deal out of it. But so many people, probably especially girls, grow up with this being the norm, something to dream about, and want these things.

If you don't care about getting married? Fine! I don't mind, and society shouldn't push it on you. If you think homecoming and prom are pointless, ridiculous, overrated spectacles, I can pretty much agree with you there (I basically only went with groups of friends because it wound up being a fun place to hang out for the night). If you don't want to have children, or want to adopt, or see no reason why people would make such a big deal over having a biological child, that's fine; I don't want to give birth myself, I'd love to adopt, though I can definitely, definitely see the appeal of bringing a life into the world and having them, in a very real way, be a part of you and your loved one.

But the minute you say that because you don't care about it, no one else should care about it, so it's okay if they're never allowed to do it... that's BS. Even if it's "make-pretend crap," a lot of people really do dream of getting married. A real marriage, dress and suit, wedding party, ceremony, cake, the works, all being recognized. Even besides all the legal benefits, they want that. And if they want to be able to have that, and they are suddenly told that because they're "unnatural" they're not allowed to, they have a right to be upset, especially because of the reason for being denied that. And if it's important to them, it's an important issue that should be fought for, because we're all equal human beings and should not be made to feel lesser than anyone else.

NEXT TIME, ON A VERY SPECIAL EPISODE OF HOLY CRAP I TL;DR THE FUCK OUTTA EVERYBODY, I LEARN THE SKILL OF KNOWING HOW TO SHUT THE HELL UP, JESUS CHRIST ON A CRACKER. ;;;;