#takes

- alana was only into Will precisely because she sensed the gay vibes (but subconsciously). as a bi girl myself I know we rarely like conventionally straight men. it's usually the kinda gay ones we're into. or golden retriever boys but Will is certainly not that. he's almost a black cat bi girly.

- if hannibal had kissed Will at any point after the first half of season one, Will would've reciprocated. wouldn't even be shocked cause he was well aware that Hannibal was attracted to him. season 1 Will would've kissed back but not take anything further and s2 Will would've definitely taken it further then say to himself it was part of the plan cause he's that much of an idiot.

- margot's baby was not a boy and all of it was kind of useless.

- Will would not have bonded with the baby, Hannibal would've. It'd be a weird ass dynamic.

- Will had sex dreams about Hannibal since they met and it's why he was so weird about him combined with everything else.

- after Hannibal left in Mizumono Will realized he was down bad because what do you mean I still want him? hence the attempt to kill Hannibal bc he just couldn't accept that he was that pathetic and insane.

Right? I've seen GREENAPPLE or POISONAPPLE going around lately, right?

I love the ship, the dynamic is awesome, and the lore is already inbuilt so I get the hype.

But lord god and the power of NEKOBOYDREAMS am I thankful, that Greenapple/Poisonapple is not canon. AHAHAHHAA

I do not think I could handle, two polygamous yanderes, GANGING up on you because they both take a fancy to you.

See because they're not on good terms in canon you can escape them.

Literally on day one after the introduction, Pierrot was so distracted with Harlequin that we manage to slip away.

If they were on good terms, we're cooked. Harlequin and Pierrot work well together because they know eachother since childhood, they will find a way to work together to keep us/mc

See there's going to be a poly ending right???

Now I do not know how that poly ending is gonna happen, but I am speculating that Pierrot and Harlequin will do a custody over mc, typa jist

But if they actually fix their problems and get together romantically WITH MC we are cooked.

There is absolutely not escape

First of all, why are you so intent on defending the moral standards of iron age priest-kings? Do you think they were woke? Do you think they were woke in the land of Canaan? In 800 BC? In the society where the penalty for rape was paying 40 silver pieces to the father and then being required to marry your victim, but the penalty for cursing your parents was death? Do you think the morals those people wrote down would be fine and dandy if only it wasn't for one dastardly mistranslation?

It is not very hard to understand why ancient Israelite patriarchs didn't like homosexuality. They were a bunch of conniving, inbred aristocrats who cared more than anything about maintaining their land and property, and keeping it in their family forever. How the hell are you gonna do that if your firstborn son doesn't like girls? Obviously these people wanted absolute control over their kids and who they married, and that's what they had, and that's what they wanted to maintain, and that's what they wanted to justify ideologically when they wrote the Pentateuch. Fork found in kitchen.

And the condemnation of homosexuality isn't one errant line either. The condemnations in Leviticus have gotten the most attention, and these are the ones that you may have heard were "mistranslations and actually about pedophilia". There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that they were, though. There are a few notable translations that have been made that translate it with pedophilic implications, including Martin Luther's German translation, but there is no reason to assume he had special access to knowledge (plenty of reason to assume we have better copies of the original text than he did, in fact), and the word in the original Hebrew is zakar, which means male, not boy or child.

With no skin in the game (as I consider Leviticus to be made up by ancient wealthy men and not a transcription of Yahweh the Thunder God's ludicrously long-winded speech to Moses on Sinai) I judge the mistranslation narrative to be little more than motivated reasoning. There is no real basis for it. The narrative that it was actually just a condemnation of Canaanite temple prostitution is even more speculative.

Even if it is, though, what about the other parts? Consider Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which has this to say in its first chapter.

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Paul also explicitly condemns arsenokoites in Corinthians and Timothy. This greek term means "male-bedders" and intentionally calls back to the wording in Leviticus, albeit in Greek instead of Hebrew.

These passages are so strong that defenders tend to bite the bullet and just say "Yeah, Paul was homophobic, but he was a fallible human."

To that, I can do little more than agree. Yes, the Bible is homophobic trash (as well as monstrously patriarchal, abusive, racist, and outright genocidal trash), because it was written by people whose opinions don't have to be taken seriously. It is nothing but an ancient book, and it contains no keys to the divine, which doesn't even exist anyway.