Is Homosexuality anti-Biology?

[@cooksoni.a]

People who say homosexuality is a bad word are usually the same ones who think queer is a great word lol

[@augustomegalindo]

I don't necessarily think homosexuality is a bad word but it is used in contexts I disagree with because it most of the time had a different conotation than heterosexual for example I think homosexuality reduces same sex attraction to just sex, wich is harmful, but I agree that there is no real consitent choice for another word

[@augustomegalindo]

let me ilustrate better let's say I want to see more homosexual couples on media what the common man will infer is that I want to dudes banging on the media I watch, therefore i'm a sexual degenerate if the conotations were more flexible, I could use the word homoafective, making my statement way clearer

[@foop9]

Good point🤔

[@slimeinabox]

Queer is a good word to use. It should be brought back into the common lexicon.

[@sparagmos4748]

​@@augustomegalindo It's certainly not a word I would ever use for myself, I say 'same sex attracted', but I don't think that it's all about sex any more than heterosexuality.

[@dodgyarchetype3251]

Iran, notable for being a feminist utopia, punishes homosexuality with the death penalty but will provide government-funded gender-affirming surgeries. Homosexuality and transgenderism really are two completely different concepts tangential to each other.

[@mhorworshipper7456]

@@dodgyarchetype3251 irán notable for being a feminist utopía?!!!!

[@hebthbf]

Because of a fatwah Khomeini gave. Rest of the Muslim word tends to treat trans people more harshly... if that matters.

[@HontounoShiramizu]

While I agree with most of the argument, the idea that sex is about pleasure and not procreation is just patently untrue. Sexual pleasure is a stimulus that we acquired through evolution to incentivize the act of reproduction and not pleasure for pleasures sake. Whether or not having sex strictly for pleasure is wrong or not is a moral dilemma, but sex being about pleasure is factually incorrect on the same level as saying smell is only for inhaling pleasant odors (as opposed to recognition of good/bad sources of odor to supplement other senses) . It's mistaking the reward mechanism for (biologically) proper interactions with the interaction itself.

[@Neon-tb5pv]

From what I know and correct me if I'm wrong but only humans and dolphins enjoy sex. I do know homosexuality is present and is natural in the Animal kingdom but yeah. This supports your argument. Not procreating then doesn't contribute to the proliferation of the human species. So therefore in that sense, homosexuality goes against procreation. But do i agree with the conservatives and homophobia in general? Nope. Homosexuality is natural, I just think that in procreation though goes against reproduction of human beings. But like KC said, I'm not gonna say that "Oh every gay and/or Lesbian out there, go and have sex with the opposite sex and make tons of babies." Of course not. You do you, you have sex with the ones you're attracted to, whoever they are. And if you do want to have children, then by all means. Same sex couples work too!

[@dakabaka4912]

This is where fundamental disagreement occurs right? Sex is meant for life some and pleasure is the side effect. Others say pleasure is what sex is for and life is the side effect.

[@sweetseamonster]

It evolved as a reproduction incentive but it has other purposes and has evolved beyond just that. Like for instance helps maintain social bonds in mates/social species. I'm sure you've heard of the bonobos, they literally do sexual activity for everything, for bonding to figuring out disputes, asserting dominance they are just crazy lol 🤣 So yes it evolved for a specific purpose but life will use it for other things, as it does for all of its evolutionary adaptations.

[@kateamanak]

Would it be possible that things in life (like smell and sex) have more than 1 purpose? Why does one purpose have to exclude or diminish the other? Pleasure isn't merely an intellectual conception of "pleasure". It brings positive physiological effects that help an organism stay healthy. Pleasure in sex also strengthens social bonds which may likely aid in survival. These aren't merely rewards. They are just as legitimate a purpose as reproduction is. Indeed sexuality is a really big component of some animal's lives, principally more intelligent species, because it has evolved to have more intelligent functions.

[@thomaspetrucka]

This! I have heard multiple people reuse that same argument, and it irks me every time. We are lucky enough to live in a world that is prosperous enough and egalitarian enough that we can divorce sex from its natural consequences. Contraception is easy to obtain, many countries have legalized abortion to some extent, and the are medications for the more pernicious venereal diseases. But, that's relatively new. Maybe 100 years maximum? It's not like we've been able to evolve past it as a species. I absolutely agree that we shouldn't castigate people for things like homosexuality, but people who argue for it go much too far, much too often.

[@jasonwoods2802]

Only if you think biology has a prescriptive aspect rather than just being a study of living things

[@foop9]

This comment is why reality based language is good

[@mhorworshipper7456]

@@jasonwoods2802 finally!

[@xenn4985]

The study OF biology... Biology is the word for a thing.

[@Luixxxd1]

Biology does have prescriptions, otherwise the term "anomaly" would be just pointless

[@johnmacrae2006]

@jasonwoods2802 The pee-pee isn’t made to go into the poo-poo.

[@BunScholar]

For the record, we absolutely have advent calendars in America.

[@KC_Streams]

Phew!

[@BlueGamingRage]

I got a cool one this year that's different tea blends

[@boiledelephant]

@@KC_Streams KC, you didn't really think the USA would miss an opportunity to mass produce and sell confectionery to an indoctrinated customer base, did you?!

[@interrobangings]

​@@KC_StreamsCanada too!

[@purplemg1812]

I always feel so bad for this dude, because half of his content is having to say "Oh, no, you didn't see the logic/point of my statement, let me guide you to it", on points he has re-explaining over and over, and yet people still miss it.

[@abcdeshole]

The reasons why trans makes no sense are incredibly simple, and yet trans mania is extremely resistant and demands a lot of repetition.

[@GibbusWibbus]

That comes with being in the center unfortunately. The extremes of both sides just can’t even FATHOM that someone would agree with anything the other says, and it’s sad :(

[@zzodysseuszz]

Yeah but usually he’s just wrong. Like when he tries to argue the trans movement is sexist to women because according to him it affects women more. It’s just an extremely close minded statement

[@user-vx3wc8yc9v]

@@zzodysseuszz Gender ideology is in fact sexist but this "it hurts women" thing is a huge reach and not even necessary to debunk trans ideology as well as gender ideology. Seems odd to include in his arguments.

[@mattd5240]

​@@GibbusWibbusI despise those kinds of people. Literal hands over ears lalala mentality.

[@cooksoni.a]

That argument about biological purpose and sexual pleasure is incredible. Im definitely stealing that lol. Ive been wanting for a while to see a prominent GC break down the fundamentally different angles that anti gay and anti trans arguments take, because it seems obvious to me but i found most of the GCs who talked about this to be a bit unsatisfactory in terms of the arguments. But this is perfect

[@cap1913]

The pleasure argument is flawed, in the it doesn’t account for the reason of pleasure. Pleasure generally is a way for the body to signal actions which the person should take, thus in the context of sex it is more reasonable to assume that the feeling of pleasure is meant to inhibit actions towards reproduction. It would be crazy to assume that cavemen had sex for pleasure, simply due to the fact that it is very energy demanding, meaning it would considerably be a cost in terms of survival. Seeing as pleasure doesn’t bring any inherent value to a person; it is simply a programmed chain of biological events to act towards some intended wanted goal. In conclusion we can determine from a rational and materialistic standpoint by Occam’s razor that the intention of pleasure was meant to incentivize reproduction, not sex in general.

[@ElDrHouse2010]

@@cap1913 Exactly.

[@jasonwoods2802]

@@cooksoni.a what's a GC? Gay critic?

[@aone9050]

3 hidden replies

[@fioredeutchmark]

So the pleasure argument isn’t a particularly good one tbh. The primary purpose of sexual intercourse between two humans has always been to procreate. We can stretch this purpose out to a universal; all living things engage themselves sexually (process of opposite gametes combining) as to procreate. The fact that there is a tangential chemical reaction in humans that provides a sensation of pleasure is irrelevant to the primary purpose of procreation. The logical entailment from your position would be one can misuse anything and adapt it for any secondary or tertiary purpose one desires and that that provides moral validation of said action or behaviour. This is a nonsensical position for a number of reasons. The misuse of the primary purpose of sexual intercourse is plain to see, basically every metric you can measure shows that the more promiscuous one is the lower the quality of one’s life. This would then entail a moral argument against this behaviour as this behaviour is demonstrably degenerate and leads to demonstrably worse outcomes than the alternative. The next reason this is nonsense is that one could use your exact line of logic to justify any action as “Biological” and then conflate that with morality. There are plenty of actions and behaviours (violent SA, intentional planned unaliving) that produce a positive reaction within the context of biology that we quite rightly see as unacceptable and morally abhorrent. We actually make the argument in law regarding biology in the reverse. We understand that your biology includes a brain that can reason and act logically DESPITE the chemical/ emotional changes that take place minutes to minute. If we didn’t have this core concept our entire legal system would cease to strive for objectivity and descend into a cesspit of subjectivity.

[@Le-cp9tr]

Homosexuality makes perfect sense for societies with large populations to prevent exponential growth and hitting carrying capacity too early while still having people who can do work needed to keep society functioning. Really if you two siblings or eight first cousins on average any genetic loss from your death will be made up for by your familial group, therefore it’s more advantageous to have some individuals who are not going to consume more resources

[@kmarie7051]

Whatever the reason science strongly supports homosexuality being biological and gay people being born gay. It's believed that gay men, during some point in fetal life, were exposed to unusually low levels of androgens, which allowed their hypothalamic circuits to develop in a female-typical direction. Bisexuality might result from intermediate levels of testosterone. It's believed genes help set these levels but it's still unsure which genes these are. In general, few major genes have been identified in the field of behavioral genetics; most heritable psychological traits seem to be influenced by multiple genes, each of modest effect. This could well be true for sexual orientation too. If so, different individuals might carry different complements of “gay genes” and thus exhibit different kinds of homosexuality for example some more gender non conforming than others. And single genes might be decisive in some families but play no role in others. Genes are involved one way or another in the pathway by which sex hormones influence their target tissues. If testosterone levels during a critical prenatal period are high , the brain is organized in such a way that the person is predisposed to become typically masculine in a variety of gendered traits, including sexual attraction to females. If testosterone levels are low during that same time period, the brain is organized in such a way that the person is predisposed to become typically feminine in gendered traits, including sexual attraction to males. The association between sexual orientation and other gendered traits arises because all these traits differentiate under the influence of a common biological process-the sexual differentiation of the brain under the influence of sex hormones. Whether a person ends up gay or straight depends in large part on how this process of biological differentiation goes forward, with the lead actors being genes, sex hormones and the brain systems that are influenced by them. The organisational effects of hormones on the brain prior to birth have permanent effects. Neuroscientific studies have shown that the brains of lesbians are partially masculinized and gay mens partially feminized. Structures and patterns of brain organisation appear similar between gay men and heterosexual women and between lesbian women and heterosexual men. Gay men appear, on average, more “female typical” in brain pattern responses and lesbian women are more “male typical” . Differences in brain organisation mean differences in psychology and study after study show differences in cognition between heterosexual and gay people. Studies on different animals have shown changing the amount of testosterone that an animal is exposed to changes whether they are sexually interested in same-sex or opposite-sex mates or will be more male-typical or female-typical in behaviours and these are un-changeable with hormones later on after birth. In animal homosexuality in females is attributed to an overabundance of male hormones - androgens - in the womb, while male homosexuality results from a lack of these. There's also hormonal genetic disorders like congenital adrenal hyperplasia in girls that leads to them being more masculinized in gender traits and more likely to be same sex attracted. These studies cannot be experimented on humans as that would be unethical,, but there's ton's of research on animals that mirror some of the same brain differences in humans. Same difference found in homosexual male sheeps (oSDN) (called the INAH3 in humans) was the same size as females and it was twice as large in heterosexual sheep, the same as they found homosexual mens compared with the heterosexual mens. This was tested in hormonal lab treated animals like rats called the (SDN-POA) in rats and further tests were done on the sheep to determine this was determined during the brains development in the womb. There's differences found in several other areas of homosexual mens brain's also. Gay men and lesbians are gender shifted in a variety of male favoring-visuospatial traits such as mental rotation, targeting, and navigation, as well as female-favouring tasks such as verbal fluency and object location memory. Many of these functions, particularly the spatial skills and the verbal skills reside in different sides of the brain and they call it cerebral asymmetry, the asymmetry in the way the brain is organized. This asymmetry is determined and organized around the middle of pregnancy and these correlate very highly with who you are sexually. Sexual orientation is something that is hardwired before birth. Male homosexuality is not just an isolated trait but rather part of a package of gender variant traits, If a man inherits a few of these genes, he will have some feminine characteristics, which might include increased empathy and kindness, decreased aggressivness and the like, These genes increase his attractivness to women, permitting him more sexual access and thus offering him the likelihood of having more offspring. If a man inherits all of these genes, however, he will be feminized to the point of homosexuality, and his reproductive success will drop markedly. Because each feminizing gene is present in many more straight men than gay men it only has to raise each straight man's reproductive success by a small amount to compensate for the lowered reproductive success of gay men. Science has many good theories on why a"gay genes" still survived in the gene pool and how it's related to our survival and fitness of relatives to continue on the families genes and linage. for example, genes being selected for female fecundity which have a byproduct of causing a certain amount of same sex behaviour among males, a sexually antagonistic effect. There is also many other great theories and it's believed not all homosexual people are homosexual for the same reasons, but it's always about the survival and fitness of close relatives to carry on the genes and aids their relatives to reproduce more or have more reproductive success, although there is still no definitive answer. It might just be a normal variation( like intersex conditions are a natural biological variation even though most cannot reproduce) or different factors young maternal age, maternal weight gain, genetic conditions, sensitive immune system response to testosterone in women, and hormonal treatment during pregnancy. It could also be an epigenetic reaction to severe pre-natal stress. For example if a woman were to show signs and signals of some illness or health problem during pregnancy she is going to need that child to have more female typical traits to help with her and other off springs survival.

[@FreeTheDonbas]

Is this the 80s? Lesbians have babies nowadays.

[@csar07.]

Hitting carrying capacity wouldn’t necessarily wipe out a group. Why would floating under the carrying capacity of your tribe be more beneficial than just naturally maxing out your population to the limit and having the “extra” population be starved.

[@scolexuk]

The fact that homosexuality occurs universally across human cultures in similar proportions as well as commonly among our closest primate relatives would suggest a biological/epigenetic basis, which in turn suggests some positive effect on evolutionary fitness for populations of humans that include a small number of homosexuals.

[@icy_icenhour]

💯💯💯 I’m reminded of that Russell Peters joke: “Dad, they’ve got a population crisis over there! We could use a couple of homos in India right now!” 😂

[@Oysters176]

Penguins too.

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

@@scolexuk or people just horny

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

@@scolexuk how

[@KC_Streams]

Definitely suggests it. Doesn't necessarily prove that it's morally good though obviously, since some evolutionary advantageous things might be subject to moral critique

[@KaiDecadence]

I've always hated this angle but it's always been hard to explain as a gay man. All I know about myself is that I never had physical attraction to women to the point where when I hit puberty and I was hearing how boys felt about girls, I just couldn't relate at all because I didn't feel that way but I did fele that way towards other boys but at the time, I didn't know what to make of it, all I knew was that whenever I was around a boy I thought was cute, I had this queasy "butterflies in the stomach" type of feeling and feel very nervous lol And no, I was not m*lested or any of those other ridiculous stereotypes that had been said about why gays and lesbians become the way we are. And I've heard LOTS of similar things from other gays and lesbians and to me, that convinces me that it is biological because why would we willingly choose to live a life that gives us a smaller dating pool and be seen as degenerates and/or freaks by homophobic people? It just makes no sense lol. So in relation to biology, we definitely aren't "anti-biology" in the sense that we know that we are attracted to the same sex and not attracted to the opposite, including those who try to "trans" into the opposite sex. That really shows the authenticity of homosexuality. It may look like a duck but it doesn't quack like a duck, therefor it's not a duck lol. Anyway I hope you have a very gay holidays with your family and friends!

[@ibdora05]

I love you, Kai Decadence! I really admire you, your view points, and your content. Happy (early) holidays. ❤

[@Svalinn-s1j]

Same here. When I was very little, I had those crushes and those days, I didn't even know what "gay" was or that it was a thing. I never saw or heard of it. Then when I hit puberty, the crushes became more real or more intense if that's the right word. I just always was, I never asked for it, never chose it. And with that, I grew up knowing that most people see me as one of the worst things one can possibly be. Really f'd me up

[@newsavefile]

As another gay man there is no concrete evidence of it being biological. They have not found the gay gene and a huge majority of men are straight. It's a trauma response. There is a lot of evidence pointing to this but the the propagandized field of psychology has been take over by fetishists ever since freud and the research remains repressed.

[@liminal_criminal]

As another gay man I got nothing. 👨🏼‍🦼

[@zzodysseuszz]

It’s not biology. Either something went wrong in your brain or there’s an entirely different thing going on. Why would it be biologically if there is no biological purpose for homosexuality.

[@augustomegalindo]

About Pride and AIDS, I think nowadays those are just flag waving for the sake of flag waving, but I their original ideas are important because us Gays never had a foundation, we never really had the opprtunity to exist as a "chaste gay couple" until recently, we never had a societal structure for us to come back to if shit got real, so I disagree on the notion that pride had no value

[@victorvargas9330]

ALOT of comments and responses, especially constructive ones, to this video are being heavily censored by YT just so all of you know.

[@udonge1043]

ALOT of comments and responses to this video but curiously very few of them are coming from people who have had gay homosexual sex before. we need to hear more experts’ opinions on this issue

[@nithurlut]

​@@udonge1043what exactly would you like to know?

[@jaernihiltheus7817]

@udonge1043 what is thy question? I am something of a homosexual myself.

[@victorvargas9330]

@@udonge1043 Those expert opinions, myself included, are being heavily cxnsxrxd by the very corporation that touts diversity, equity, and inclusion. Hypocrisy in 16K times the detail.

[@Clb9000]

@@udonge1043 Probably sample size. Far less homosexuals than heterosexuals

[@jibbobdion5072]

I see the the arguments against trans-identity are more similar to arguments against Religion, it always surprises me that you are Religious, as both trans/gender ideology and Religion involve magical thinking that do not match reality.

[@KC_Streams]

Well the anti-trans arguments are similar to any argument about a claim being made about reality. I think some such arguments are true and others aren't

[@boiledelephant]

@@KC_Streams the quality of evidence is actually similar in both cases, though, surely. Trans advocates point to the sheer number of trans people who have a deep inner sense of being trans; reliigous advocates point to the sheer numbers of faithfuls who have a deep inner sense of the presence or existence of a deity or divine realm.

[@sweetestgirlonline]

20:26 completely unrelated to anything you said but: only about 2 or 3 years ago i learnt that in the West, AIDS was like this gay thing. in South Africa we learn about HIV/AIDS pretty young, like, in Grade 4, at 10 years old, and from the way we learn it, if anything, it seemed like a straight thing. i don’t know, i’ve just always found that so odd. Africans can be pretty homophobic but i’ve never heard them bring up *AIDS.*

[@KC_Streams]

I remember being confused watching shows about africans suffering from aids and thinking... so like all of Africa is gay?

[@zimzob]

It’s a kind of founder’s effect: in Africa, the virus passed from wild simian populations to humans living near them, so there was no special group selected by sexual preference, thus entered the general population through heterosexual intercourse, accelerated by rampant prostitution, rape, and adultery, but the virus was introduced to America by homosexual men returning from foreign “sex vacations,” then spread through anonymous “gay bathhouse” sex, and also intravenous drug use common in the same population.

[@seeyouinthecircle]

That's because South Africa is where the virgin-cleansing myth took its greatest hold/was most widespread, and thus where the most infants/children are forcibly exposed to the virus. "The virgin cleansing myth (also referred to as the virgin cure myth, virgin r-p- myth, or simply virgin myth) is the belief that having sex with a virgin girl cures a man of HIV/AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases." "A study in 1999 by sexual health educators in Gauteng reported that 32 percent of the survey participants believed the myth." "In 2002, psychologist Mike Earl-Taylor wrote that the virgin cure myth may explain the staggering rise in child or infant r-p-s in South Africa, which is facing an HIV/AIDS epidemic. UNICEF has attributed the r-p- of hundreds of girls to the virgin cleansing myth." "Anthropologist Suzanne Leclerc-Madlala says the myth is a potential factor in infant r-p- by HIV-positive men in South Africa. In addition to young girls, who are presumed to be virgins because of their age, people who are "blind, deaf, physically impaired, intellectually disabled, or who have mental-health disabilities" are sometimes r-p-d under the erroneous presumption that individuals with disabilities are sexually inactive and therefore virgins."

[@mhorworshipper7456]

@@sweetestgirlonline 1- HIV and AIDS is an STD … it spred among the gay community due to the general missconception of condoms just needed to avoid pregnancy…. It is not a gay thing… Many heterosexual people got infected through blood transfutions or medical procedures… the virus originales in a certain breed of monkeys in central africa 100 years ago and “jumped” to humans in that área first… That’s why you were not told it was a “gay thing”… the “gay thing lie” was the result of homophobic ideologies in the USA

[@supermario69kraftgami23]

Also, promiscuity itself does not cause AIDS if certain precautions are taken. Promiscuous people actually have lower rates of STIs because they're more educated about it and communicate better with their partners. AIDS is a harmful stereotype not only for the LGB community but also for those like me who prefer polyamorous lifestyles.

[@SaucyJack88]

I haven't seen the video yet so maybe this gets brought up, but the answer is simple: Homosexual mammals exist in the animal kingdom, transsexual mammals do not.

[@5PizzaFreak5]

I've always heard or homosexual behavior in animals, but are there cases of exclusive homosexuality in animals or is it a case of breed first and ask questions later?

[@catoticneutral]

Technically there's some animals that can physically change their sex but since that's a natural process it's probably not really comparable to a human asking a doctor to help them become the opposite sex.

[@Idziemel1]

Well, apart from humans, that is. If that’s not enough for you, what’s your position on the existence of firefighters? I don’t seem many of them among other mammals. How about darts? Other animals don’t really play darts all that much.

[@SaucyJack88]

@@Idziemel1 Firefighters and darts indeed aren't biological...

[@Idziemel1]

@@SaucyJack88 Not sure what you mean by "biological", but they're definitely natural, seeing as how they're products of animals (humans).

[@xDanKaix]

I’m absolutely devastated. I’m shocked. I’m appalled. I cannot believe what you said. It’s actually disgusting… That you would suggest the we don’t have advent calendars in the USA. It’s just not a widespread phenomenon. We still have them.

[@martineyles]

A religious argument around the origins of sin has to be centered around the fall, recorded in early Genesis. It is surely clear from this doctrine that all of creation is affected, not just humans, and that this affects not just behaviour. You don't hear people arguing that people aren't born missing limbs ot that missing limbs is a good thing, so it seems perverse to then argue in some other way that people aren't born a particular way that you morally object to, even though that would actually be consistent with everything else.

[@martineyles]

Should have said Christian or Jewish specifically. A religion that reads Genesis.

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

@@martineyles that's a good point

[@victorvargas9330]

The fall of the morningstar is due to his treachery against God because he was envious of His other creations for He favored them over him - humans. Transgenders (not transsexuals) hide their treacherous intentions and strike when opportunity arises (i.e. interceding in female spaces, lying about their identities, playing victim then oppresses, etc.). The TransGs/men are jealous of females/women.

[@victorvargas9330]

Seems YT censored the replies, so I cannot follow-up with a response to my initial comment without knowing what it is about.

[@DorianPaige00]

They don't care if you are born that way with some tendency. The don't want you to do any acts that they feel should be restricted, immoral, or illegal with homosexuality among them.

[@UteHeggenTranswidowHeals]

Yay! A Christmas jumper. Been anticipating~

[@martineyles]

Moral judgement and judgement of truth are different, though there is a link if you consider lying to also be immoral. Trans identity is falsifiable, but attraction isn't.

[@PeterDivine]

Mmm.. part of the issue is just that: Homosexuality is _ipso facto_ unfalsifiable. The movement makes no discernment between those born homosexual and those who, through either conditioning, situation, or incentive, are just saying they're homosexual.

[@jcorey333]

You are willing to concede the idea that a religious official shouldn't be compelled to participate in a gay wedding because that fundamentally changes the nature of the service they're providing. Yet that's almost exactly the argument of the cake Court act thing. The cake maker argued that creating a cake for a gay wedding fundamentally changes the nature of what he is providing for the service. He viewed it as an act of compelled speech, using his design and art talents to create something he didn't agree with. You can disagree with that or disagree that outweighs other considerations, but you may want to do a little bit more research into that specific court case before bringing it up again.

[@KC_Streams]

I'm sure that's the argument that was made, but it's a bad argument. What the cake is used for doesn't affect the service. A wedding cake baker has no say in what someone else does with the cake that they make

[@jasonwoods2802]

@@jcorey333 cake maker never refused to sell gays a cake. He refused to sell a gay cake. You are both saying the same thing past each other

[@victorvargas9330]

@@KC_Streams What the bride and bride or groom and groom should've done is keep details to a minimum or just have one of them make the order. Get the cake and be done with it. Don't like the cake figures, just replace or remove them. The bakers do not need to know everything. Or better yet, save yourselves the trouble and buy from LGBT-friendly establishments. The only other reason they would order from "those" bakeries is to probably virtue signal.

[@jcorey333]

@@KC_Streams I mean, I believe the guy said that the gay couple was free to buy any of the goods in his store if they wanted, he just wouldn't make a custom cake for them. I do believe that at least one of the Colorado courts agreed with your position, that making the cake was a part of the service offered by the company, and not a representation of the guy's free speech/ freedom of religion. I'm still not convinced that it's that big of a difference between officiating at a ceremony and making a cake for the ceremony, but I do understand that, from your position of understanding the two differently, you can see how one is a reasonable exception and the other isn't.

[@ekenerobinson3280]

Yeah…… the civil rights acts should’ve been abolished a while ago. It’s a serious blight on the freedom of association

[@dumbghost3109]

I think it differs by gender why homosexuality likely evolved in humans. Throughout all of history, large populations of exclusively male people would be largely separated from female populations, and placed into high stress situations. Its no suprise that at some point as socialization within species evolved, it developed same sex attraction specifically as an outlet for social interaction, which is why more recent studies suggest that something like 80% of males are closeted bisexuals, compares to less than 40% of women. Most (literally almost all) men, while prioritizing heterosexual relationships report being open to same sex relationships with specific men or groups of men, so it makes sense that for some men that attraction to other males would either take full priority (being fully homosexual), or take majority or equal priority (being openly bisexual), while other men it takes low priority (closeted bisexual) or no priority at at all (being fully heterosexual). I think its also worth expanding the kinsey scale vertically, and 3 dimensionally. Y axis would be "hetero- to homosexual+" with bisexual being at the 0 on the y axis. X axis would be asexuality/sexuality, with negative being less sexually attracted, and positive being more sexually attracted. and z axis would be social or romantic attraction.

[@somekindofstranger9612]

>studies suggest that something like 80% of males are closeted bisexuals, compares to less than 40% of women Oh, yes, the famous "recent" research, when all universities are taken over by leftists...probably in some department of gender studies. Very interesting is the sample and methodology, how was it determined that a particular man is "latent" bisexual, And why there were no such results before? Was there a lack of scientific discoveries, or was it because science remained science, not leftist propaganda?

[@boiledelephant]

Yeah but then we've all got to put on VR headsets to be able to look at the damn graph properly. Which is just what the gays want us to do.

[@Gingerblaze]

Adore your very gay 🎄 jumper! Well articulated and appreciated critique as usual.

[@Ekatman1836]

Gay man here. Thank you for your videos. As for your mentioning incorporating gays and lesbians into regular society and not having separate pride events, the issue of AIDS and promiscuity, and all that, I completely agree. These issues here in U.S. were taken up by the conservative gays early on. Many leftist/progressive gays saw anything straight as what is now popularly known as "heteronormative", that as gays we are some sort of separate species with different rules. The first major push for gay marriage came from people like Bruce Bawer. I say all this because its funny to hear a non-U.S. progressive now stating what was argued by the 80s-90s conservative gays in the U.S. Again, thank you for your videos.

[@joshualuke7003]

Thank you for making this video, I’m pretty tired of having to explain all this. Also I’m completely fine with people saying ‘homosexual’. I prefer it to ‘queer’, actually, which was foisted on me by activists.

[@catoticneutral]

Some people have started using "queer" as an umbrella term for the entire lgbt demographic. (imo that's probably more efficient than using an acronym that people keep wanting to add letters to. It's debatable if queer is the best word to use for that though.) In other words, a homosexual would be a type of queer person, a transgender would be another type of queer person, etc. I don't think I've heard of anyone trying to directly replace the word "homosexual" with "queer," that would be kinda stupid, even if someone is fond of using the "queer" umbrella term it still helps to have a more specific term available when they need to clarify what category of queer they're referring to.

[@kennysboat4432]

Yeah queer just doesn't seem like a positive term to me

[@foop9]

Merry Gaymas

[@YrisOrus]

Yeah loved the gay rant

[@superduperman8287]

Gay Christmas

[@_kadoodles_]

Love the teardown of the "sex is only permissible if it's for reproduction" argument. Always found that stupid, especially when the nature fallacy comes with it. Surely all the guys who say engaging in sexual acts solely for pleasure is morally wrong and "unnatural" are consistent with that take and have never: -masturbated (especially not to porn, porn is human-created and not natural!) -worn a condom -asked their wives/girlfriends to do or wear something extra unrelated to PIV sex to get them off (you don't need lingere to make a baby! and blowjobs literally cannot ever result in pregnancy!) -paid to rape a woman (she wouldn't "naturally" want to have sex with him if he didn't pay her!) -feared the thought of the woman they're cheating on their wives/girlfriends with gets pregnant (I thought the only reason you have sex is for pregnancy to happen!) -supported if not directly paid for the abortion of the above women (you're literally undoing a pregnancy with unnatural human-made medical intervention!) That evergreen saying comes to mind: "Men point with one hand and jerk off with the other." Which, incidentally, while trying to find the source of that quote (never ended up finding it, if someone knows let me know!) all the results came up with gay men porn. And so we've come full circle lol

[@yangwenli1272]

What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Has someone lobotomised you?

[@boiledelephant]

Coming full circle is also, in all likelihood, a category of gay porn.

[@hoiinka8884]

Erm... Yes I think all those things are wrong.

[@bronsonvann2662]

That entire list is just Catholic sexual ethics

[@zachkent2575]

You say all that, but I'd be really curious how you or people like you react to devout Catholics or Christians for example who ACTUALLY don't do those things. Should they be mocked for being "weird?" Should they be discouraged from discussing those life choices or the reasoning behind them in social contexts?

[@jcorey333]

As a religious person, I view gay sex like I view premarital sex: it's a sin, but there shouldn't be laws against it. Your comment about LGBTQ assimilation reminded me of a few videos from ShortFatOtaku, you'd probably like some of his stuff (i know you reviewed one of his videos, idk if you've seen others)

[@pipi-mj5zi]

I think it should be embarassing and shameful to be religious. I hope to contribute to that stigma.

[@TrentsPolitical]

Then why did God make laws against both

[@lauraw2526]

So as far the cake thing, I think I agree with you. My contention has been that if you are asked to make a custom product for anyone, you should have the right to refuse for any or no reason at all. If you have a cake on the shelf, you should sell it to anyone. If you have a brochure of all the cakes you're able to make, you should make them for anyone - but any deviations from the picture can be refused.

[@boiledelephant]

I guess - to use the historical "no blacks in this café" trope - it's the difference between a barista refusing to serve a black customer, and one refusing to write "BLM" in the foam. A subtle but actually important distinction, because in one example they're being forced to treat the public consistently in line with the law, and in the other they're being forced to parrot an ideological belief.

[@3455ZKING]

I think the disconnect is that you're arguing from an epistemic position, whereas everyone you're arguing against is on a base metaphysical position. Issue is, where Reality comes from determines it's moral character. If you're on the Right, and follow the thought that Reality comes from God (Or the theosophical Nature's God), then you must believe that anything that goes against the Will that creates that Reality is either impossible or wrong. Same thing with the Trans position. Where, when pressed on the issue, those who hold the position that "Trans women are women", view Reality as being created by the Individual Self. Creation of Reality presupposes a Will, so if their Will is to become a woman, then it is so.

[@Aufbleiben]

And then there's the medical view. Which, from my understanding, is widely based on treating the illness (delusion) because most attempts to deter the behaviors of the illness lead to negative outcomes

[@パガイ]

i agree with your logic, but challenge your implication that reality is created only by god or the individual. i would assert that most people not coming from a Right perspective believe in a socially-constructed reality

[@Wasserbienchen]

Am a lot more socially conservative to you, but I completely agree with the basic argument that these topics have nothing to do with each other, and a applaud you for the very crisp argumentation.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

14:32 - 14:51 That... doesn't follow. It's like saying the purpose of spoons isn't to facilitate eating soups because some people use them as catapult arms during food fights. In fact, it's even more of a thinking error if you also answer "why is sex pleasurable?".

[@KC_Streams]

Except spoons aren't overwhelmingly more often used as catapults for food fights compared to eating

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

@@KC_Streams and if they were? If suddenly it became popular to do that, would that change their purpose? I seriously considered making that remark in the original comment, but I didn't think you'll take this approach.

[@Spudeaux]

@@KC_StreamsIs the purpose of clothing to fill up space in my closet? My shirts spend the vast majority of their time there, and only a tiny fraction of time on my body.

[@KC_Streams]

@@masscreationbroadcasts If spoons were used for that purpose a lot more then I think we could reasonably say that's part of their purpose and it would be ridiculous to argue that you're contradicting what a spoon fundamentally is if you're using it for what it's used for I mean it's a good approach to take. Most people want to have kids a handful of times at most. Most people want to have sex for pleasure thousands of times in their lifetime. The numbers really do matter here

[@KC_Streams]

@@Spudeaux The issue is in those cases you're not really using the clothes. When you do use them, you wear them. Like is the purpose of sex to exist as an unrealised aspiration? Because most people probably spend more time thinking about and wanting sex than they do actually having it, but the point is in those cases they're not really interacting with sex

[@spi19991337]

If there is a sexual orientation, we could call it autosexuality, in which a person is turned on by what they look like during sex then, if this were innate and if, sometimes, some people have this orientation and are heterosexual, then they could feel very distressed by the way their body looks if they are aroused and picturing themself but it doesn’t look like what they are attracted to. This would make being trans a sexual orientation and would support transition being the only option for people exclusively autoheterosexual. Even if this is true, it doesn’t mean men can become women, but it would justify transgender identities and explain a way it is similar to being gay. It would also potentially confuse a lot of people who would have no way of knowing they think about sex differently than other people or even that their attraction to the feminine has an auto-sexual basis. We don’t know enough to judge this question fully yet.

[@FreeTheDonbas]

It's called AGP, but about half of all Western TIMs are HSTS.

[@boiledelephant]

This is actually quite interesting. I don't know if it's plausible, or how it would be tested/researched, but it's plausible, which is a good place to start.

[@パガイ]

alternatively, you could swap how one sees themselves during sex with how one feels themselves during sex. it would still apply for trans people without harming the sanctity of 'chromosomal biology', and you don't have to rely on decades old tropes about trans people being narcissistic or image-obsessed 'AGPs'

[@magicalcheesefish]

another great take

[@Gaming_Legend2]

woa, your argument about same sex sexual intercourse being the one that makes more sense from a pleasure standpoint is something i didn't think about it on the lesbian side of things, you are right, tho the clit does get stimulated if the man isn't shaved, that is why there is so much hair in that area from an evolutionary standpoint (supposedly), but that is some crazy argument on explaining why same sex intercourse is a thing.

[@パガイ]

one could make a similar argument for trans people, but that would be heresy!

[@JohnSmith-yw9nk]

The reasoning differs. Natural law objections to same-sex sexual acts typically emphasize the perceived violation of the biological *telos* of sex-procreation. While proponents of this view acknowledge other purposes for sexual activity, such as emotional intimacy and relational bonding, they argue that these purposes are morally permissible only when aligned with the procreative potential intrinsic to heterosexual relationships. A key distinction is drawn between same-sex couples and infertile heterosexual couples: the latter's childlessness is viewed as a loss from the natural fullness of their union, while same-sex relationships are considered intrinsically non-procreative. Critics of this application of natural law theory, however, challenge the premise that procreative potential is necessary for a sexual act to be morally permissible. They argue that this framework neglects the complexity of human relationships and the legitimacy of sexual intimacy as an expression of love, commitment, and mutual fulfillment, independent of reproductive capacity. Objections to affirming a person's gender identity, on the other hand, appeal to the idea that identity must conform to an objective reality rooted in biological sex. This reasoning emphasizes the immutability of biological characteristics as definitive of human nature, such as what it means to be a man and a woman.

[@パガイ]

could the complexity of human relationships and legitimacy of sexual intimacy not also be used to justify affirming a person's gender identity? why is it any more of a justification for the degeneracy of homosexuality than for the degeneracy of say, genderfluidity?

[@andyiswonderful]

The fact that homosexuality abounds in the natural world, not just in humans, establishes that it is not against biology.

[@パガイ]

nah, conservative biologists would gladly tell you that those are all fringe cases indicative of degeneracy or liable to spread disease or some bs i think anyone who wants to have gay should should have it, but if you're trying to make an appeal to 'biology' as a sacred doctrine, then you will inevitably fall short in the eyes of those to whom you are appealing

[@zachkent2575]

The fact that something abounds in the natural world is not proof that it is right

[@searchingstuff]

Biologically, you're correct that one sex can never be the other. But, if the desire to be the other sex is a sexual orientation or paraphilia, then isn't that natural for the person to have? In other words we can say, "Yes, you're not actually the other sex, but we understand that you're doing this to not feel incredibly lonely/sexually deprived, and that this is the only way you can be sexually and relationship satisfied."

[@pickupmygroceriespeasant]

It may be natural but that doesn't make it okay. To say it is would be an Appeal to Nature Fallacy. (To be clear, it may still be morally okay, but if so, it is not morally okay because it's natural.)

[@Random51960]

I’m gay for King Critical

[@zinogre6225]

If you believe in materialism then it shouldn’t matter whether or not it’s “natural.” The only way it matters is if you go by strictly utilitarianism, or if you believe in a religion which forbids it.

[@AnIdiotsGuidetoEverything87734]

The problem about saying that businesses cant discriminate about who to serve is that the logical endpoint is that the customer has say in how the business owner uses their resources, effectively diminishing their ownership of their business

[@jaernihiltheus7817]

I think the obvious line is that discrimination is bad if it's unrelated or unnecessary. A pastor absolutely should have a right to not conduct a gay wedding if he doesn't want to do it (speaking as a gay man here), as the people he's marrying (2 men or 2 women) is directly related to what he's doing by marrying them. However, discriminating against a gay couple for wanting to buy a house or a car or whatever - well, the fact that the two men or women have sex with each other isn't really relevant for who is buying the property or vehicle. Now is it.

[@AnIdiotsGuidetoEverything87734]

@@jaernihiltheus7817 It doesnt matter if its relevant. All that matters is that the owner owns the business and that means that he can decide who to serve. The reason not many businesses are discriminatory, even in places with anti discrimination laws, such as Japan, is that it is simply unprofitable

[@justinmathis8078]

@@jaernihiltheus7817does the left believe in freedom of association?

[@jaernihiltheus7817]

@@AnIdiotsGuidetoEverything87734 Legally, relevancy doesn't matter atm. However, I'm not talking in terms of current legality. It's my view that relevancy SHOULD be the determining factor as to whether discrimination based on things like politics or sexuality is breaking the law or not. As that's what makes sense to me and literally anyone I've heard touch the subject of service refusal.

[@AnIdiotsGuidetoEverything87734]

@@jaernihiltheus7817 You havent countered my point

[@AwkCrafty]

Lovin the Christmas jumper

[@comradescar6547]

As an emoish homosexual yes too many of us enjoy being normal and gloomy and gay technically would be a weird word to use. Even positive stereotypes can become negative cuz they’re just not always true. Tbf ppl call straight emos gay all the time too tho lmfao

[@boiledelephant]

Straight emos are pretty gay. I was a straight emo and I tried dudes just to be edgy (true story). It's a thing.

[@atticstattic]

Being 'anti biology' or 'denying biology' is just more obuscation by trans activists; the point is, you don't have to deny the sex binary to be gay.

[@Joe-Przybranowski]

I've read that a gay uncle or aunt would likely have helped raising their siblings children- indirectly furthering their own familial genes. That would be one of the reasons its not selected against. There has to be some benefit to it or it would have disappeared thousands of years ago.

[@パガイ]

you can say literally the same thing about historically genderqueer people, perhaps even more so with the inclusion of ace people. it truly takes a village

[@ijansk]

You think homosexuality is only thousands of years old? It catches my attention when some people think homosexuality is only a few thousand years old and not as old as life since homosexuality is a biological characteristic and well observed and documented by science across the animal kingdom.

[@asmkalrizion7078]

I disagree that sex is for pleasure, the pleasure is there to incentivize sex due to its biological necessity for reproduction. like "a spoon full of honey helps the medicine go down" the purpose isn't honey consumption, honey is the incentive for consuming the medicine.

[@user-sf5fk6ox4c]

Excellent. Thank you, King Critical !

[@hatertime]

All sorts of paraphilia occurs across a broad range of cultures and animal species.

[@CaptainAwsome]

23:26 we do, they are near the checkouts at my local kroger

[@joshualuke7003]

I will note as well that more and more I’ve started to see homosexuality brought up again as a mental disorder/trauma response from being conflated with transgenderism/gender dysphoria both, as you say, from the left and the right. It would be cool to see a video tackling that.

[@wehtawnikrap]

In Australia we have an ice cream called gilden gaytime. It's best when not eaten alone.

[@sourdoughed]

Thank you, KC, for handling this topic with your usual cool rational and respectful style. I‘ve reason to believe you have a small but sizeable gay fanbase :) Edit: AIDS is part of gay culture beyond just sex because gay men lost so many friends to the virus - and friends have an extra importance when many gay men lost their traditional family on coming out. I’d also recommend reading or listening to the gay chapter in Douglas Murray’s “Madness of Crowds” if you wanted to develop your thinking a little more on this topic. He discusses, among other things, the schism in the gay movement from the beginning (queer versus social assimilation) and how the movement at its worst demands not just equal but extra rights - the parallels to the trans movement being obvious.

[@JoofStudios]

Love your videos Mr Critical

[@Tsarbben]

I thank you for covering that there is criticism to be had with the pride movement, as that is where my criticism lies. Love your content!

[@Gingerblaze]

Many homosexual ppl were against the language used when advocating for same sex partnerships to be legally recognized and offer the same legal protections that straight partnerships were afforded via marriage. Many gay couples do not consider their partnership a "marriage" and understood the resistance of straight ppl who objected to the word marriage being opened to include same sex unions.

[@Phannall]

Homosexual behaviour is very rare amongst most animals and has probably developed as a means of getting pleasure, masturbation through the help of another, but also have some social functions as establishing dominance or bonding etc. Saying that because mens g-spot is stimulated best through homosexual activity does mean that the purpose of it is to make homosexual sex more pleasurable is fallacious as it most likely didn't evolve to be there for that reason. And then saying that having sex mainly for pleasure is the purpose of sex follows bad logic as the pleasure most likely evolved as a motivation for animals to have sex to promote reproduction as evolution is fueled by reproduction. I wouldn't say entirely that homosexual sex is against nature but I would rather say that it is an unintended development from how sex has evolved over time.

[@HermesGabriel25]

Idk, from one guess without watching the video, the answer is no. In fact, biology would prove homosexuality in the form of dopamine receptors as sexual arousal does create dopamine. As a result of those dopamine receptors being pleased through sexual gratification, those desires are what solidify whether or not you are a heterosexual, homosexual, or a bisexual (maybe asexual if you never were able to develop those sexual desires... and even then, that sexuality is debated as to whether or not it's just glorified celibacy by choice). Case in point, sexual arousal is the result of dopamine receptors being stimulated; therefore, biological via the endocrine system

[@sweetestgirlonline]

i’m just gonna say it: a lot of this is gay male culture. a lot of the “issues” with the “gay movement” (i hate using words like this because it makes me sound like a dick when i literally have a big ass pride flag hanging by my bed) stem from gay men, and i’m kinda tired of sapphic women dealing with shit because of it. i don’t remember the exact circumstances, but a few weeks ago on Twitter, you know with the whole polyamorous relationships being in lgbtq+, someone said that these relationships are “queer” because they’re “abnormal.” alright, whatever, i just said i hate the word queer, right? when referring to myself and other same-sex attracted women, i prefer the term “sapphic,” because it’s much prettier (and my birthday is in September, so my birth stone is sapphire) and it’s easier than saying “lesbian and bisexual women” or “same-sex attracted women” every time. someone asked, then, what i would prefer people who don’t otherwise label their sexuality be called (and the whole labelling thing is another issue), and i said i prefer the term sapphic for women, and the way thus guy tore into me. “what about men and non-binary people?!” “this is transphobic and misandrist!” “gay men and trans people are the ones who got you your rights!” like goddamn.

[@ashhhhhhhhhhhhhhh]

The obsession with labels is key. Most of them are part of the ingroup *because* they have chosen a label that allows them to be. Their identity is a matter of words, not reality. You're a woman into other women, and would remain as such even if you chose to identify as a wombat into cricket

[@moose5266]

Can you come up with one for guys tho. Please please 🥺 (it’s fine if you don’t want to)

[@sweetestgirlonline]

@@moose5266i would say it on here but it’s a slur.

[@パガイ]

i'm pretty sure achillean is the guy version. it sounds appropriately pompous

[@talkwithstrangers]

Your point about a baker being allowed to not provide gay wedding cakes, based on their personal belief, could be used to justify not baking a cake for an interracial or disabled couple. It’s the same logic applied. Surely in a society that protects human rights, not providing services based on discriminating against biologically immutable characteristics eg ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability are all equally wrong. Why allow it for the immutable characteristic of homosexuality but decry against a racist baker?

[@victorvargas9330]

Because you would know not to do business there but elsewhere where they actually support said immutable biological characteristics. Why would any herbivores in their right minds go into the lions' den?

[@dougmasters4561]

@talkwithstrangers surely in a society that respects human rights you arent allowed to force people to use their labor against their will. The baker said they could buy anything they make, he only refused to 'custom' make them a specific something with a specific message. The narcissism to try and suggest there is a 'human' right to someone else creating art for you for any reason. Surely the right to one's own labor and creativity is paramount over your desire to their labor.

[@BlueGamingRage]

Let me flip it around: would you really want to buy things from someone who hates your existence and only provides you goods and services because they are legally compelled to? I would do as much as I reasonably could to avoid giving my money to such a person

[@ekenerobinson3280]

As a black guy, Abolish civil rights. Forcing a private business to serve those they don’t want to serve infringes on their freedom of association

[@jaernihiltheus7817]

The baker refused to bake a custom cake for the wedding, he was perfectly happy to sell them the standard selection, and even offered alternative stores that would bake a custom cake despite potentially losing out on business. That's called reasonable accommodation.

[@lordm0918]

You’ve got it backwards. Sex isn’t for pleasure because it’s pleasurable with pregnancy is a side effect. Sex is for pregnancy, with pleasure as a side effect in order to get you to do it. Most people using sex for pleasure doesn’t mean that’s the point of it, it means we’re just in a deeply unnatural mindset (unnatural does not necessarily mean bad). It is also a little more complicated. Sex has a secondary purpose of bonding, but that bonding is for the purpose of child rearing. This is especially evidenced by the fact that those bond and the capacity for those type of bonds disappear when they’re given to multiple people. Someone trying to use those bonds to bond with the homies would quickly find themselves ambivalent, and find their homies torn apart with jealousy and one sided feelings. These bonds are only useful for parental relationships. I understand that an alien might wrongly infer something about sexual biology, but you’re not an alien. You can look past that. You can say “well, I guess this makes some sense, but the overwhelming evidence says otherwise”. The men who only pursued women instead of wasting their energy on men would outcompete the other men within a few generations. Especially in times of plenty when women are less choosey about their mates.

[@stephanie06-9]

This kind of thinking only works if you believe we’re the product of some master design plan, which you may very well believe. I would argue that our ability to experience sexual pleasure is what contributed to our success as a species, and that there is no true purpose in sex. We get enjoyment from sex , so we’ll do it even when we do not wish to conceive. We are now at far greater risk of overpopulation than extinction, so it doesn’t matter to our continuation as a species if we’ve found a loophole around reproduction.

[@jibbobdion5072]

OOOO OOOO OHHH A RESPONSE TO VAUSH YOU SAY?? I HOPE IT'S THE REQUEST I'VE BEEN MENTIONING IN THE COMMENTS HYPE TIME, HYPE TIME

[@KC_Streams]

Uhm... I'm not sure if it is honestly

[@jibbobdion5072]

@@KC_Streams Ahhhhh 👀 I thought you might have been hinting at a Vaush vs Saanvi response, since I've been requesting that one for a while, on their "are trans-men, men" debate

[@epiccg6872]

im not out as gay but i think homosexual is a fine way of describing me.

[@mattd5240]

How come you haven't come out, if you don't mind me asking?

[@epiccg6872]

@@mattd5240 havent had a date or any relationship for that matter yet, so there's no need to

[@joshuaokoro-sokoh2993]

It depends on what you call anti-biology. Biology is the all-encompassing study of living things and everything that is closely related to that study of living things.

[@t.n.21]

LMFAO the gay season bit got me.

[@BushAndFence]

15:09 while I agree with a majority of your statements and views on these topics the one thing you lose me on is when you start talking about pleasure. A. Just because M+M and F+F intimacy causes pleasure does not mean it was evolved to (correlation doesn’t = causation). It is probably just due to the similarities in our “parts”. Though a good argument for it would be good bonding through pleasure and a well bonded group helped its individuals survive better and therefore increase the likelihood that they pass on their genes. B. If pleasure evolved just for the sake of pleasure and not to increase mate bonding/reproduction, then why don’t we derive pleasure from something odd that has nothing to do with reproduction ie rubbing finger tips ( its one of the places in our body with a very high, touch sensitive, nerve count). Not trying in to debunk you or anything like that, this is just where I think your argument is weakest and wanted to see how you deal with a view on how pleasure works through a more realistic evolutionary perspective. Great videos, they really make people think, keep it up.

[@adiudicium]

In the biological sense homosexuality is a neutral to positive trait. There's a lot of loss in biology, mothers die, babies die, but the key thing is not an individual survives but a family line carries on. If a person doesn't have children but helps the group survive they've done their job. The family line carries on, there's also a survival advantage where grandparents have an input in their grandchildren.

[@SeaBreeze-w9998]

You’re assuming they will help the family more than they would by having children

[@LazerDisk]

It's not anti-biology, I think it's just an outcome brought about by errors in development and susceptible genes.

[@channel-your-flannel]

Wanting to reclaim the word gay is an idea I've also thought of, as a lover of old movies. Also queer. Do you reckon we could get away with it?

[@jakubdzejkob9989]

Hey, great videos! Really enjoyed many of them. Do you have a video on TRA argumentation that men should be legally recognized as women like adoptive parents are legally recognised as parents? I have a problem with arguing that because both seems like legal fiction but Im opposed only to first one

[@mhorworshipper7456]

@@jakubdzejkob9989 Let’s see, you donkey…. Adoptivo parents are legally recognised as parents because the law deals with obligationw, duties and rights resulting of being TUTORS of a minor… a father can not be recognised legally as a parent even thought ihe is biologically so…. There are no differences between a woman and a man legally!!!! The law is the same for every citizen whether they are male or female…. If you mean a transcender woman should be officially recognised as such or not is something complete different

[@rodnee2340]

This could get hilariously offensive... I'll just get some popcorn!😅

[@BiznizTrademark]

The main issue in the whole debate seems not to be the factual question who IS a man or a woman, but whether people who (for some reason or other) want to be recognized - socially and/or legally - as women or men SHOULD recieve that recognition. In other words, whether a biological male in some circumstances should be recognized as a woman. And that could be for other reason than that the person believes that he IS (or have turned into) a biological woman. If you claim that you're only interested in the factual question and have nothing to say about the normative one, some may claim that your position is not terribly interesting.

[@ambientjohnny]

The entire notion of males possibly "being like women" is absurdly sexist. And not one single "trans" advocate can ever explain what these supposed standards are for how men or women are "supposed" to feel.

[@steve112285]

My thoughts on how to define trans: Suppose we had the technology to change chromosomes, hormones and other body chemistry, sex organs, bone structure, etc. such that a person can be made indistinguishable from the opposite sex in every way. Suppose this could be done without any negative or positive side effects besides conditions standard for members of the opposite sex. For a first approximation, we could define a person with trans psychology as someone who, if they could only have such a procedure done once and never reversed, would choose to make the change. And we could define a trans person as someone who goes through with that change. [Changing many times could be called fluid, and changing at least twice but not many more could be curious, experimenting.] With this definition, there are many people today with trans psychology, but no trans people because we don't have the requisite technology. We can refine the rough definition of trans psychology to account for a few circumstances. There could be people who think they'd be happier if they had the procedure done than if they hadn't, but are mistaken. There could be people who aren't much concerned in the change of their own sex, but rather the romantic and sexual partners that could be available after such a change. There could be people seeking attention or codified privileges (e.g. hiring, admissions, or legal advantages) from such a change. Perhaps you can think of some others. So we could define a person with trans psychology as a person who would be happier having the procedure done and never reversing it than if they hadn't had the procedure done, even if... i) their options for romantic and sexual partners were completely unchanged (e.g. by changing the desires of other people) ii) neither they nor anyone else would remember they made the change, so that they couldn't use trans status for attention, clout, or economic benefits iii) people were treated equally under the law, in education, in employment, regardless of sex or past sex changes With this definition, there are still many people today with trans psychology.

[@thomaspetrucka]

I think you're misunderstanding the slippery slope argument in this case. (or at least what a discerning conservative would say about it) The problem with legalizing gay marriage was that the many of the same arguments for homosexuality were being used for transgenderism, fetishism, polyamory, and even pedophilia. We knew that for activists, gay marriage was a foot in the door. In America, at least, the "behind closed doors" argument was basically dropped immediately after the court ruling. So, even if the sentiment was genuine, it certainly didn't feel like the real reason. And I think history has proved that right because of the trans debate, because I see a lot of the same rhetoric used for trans people, though with different words. "It's part of who I am", "it doesn't affect you", "you just hate gay/trans people", "my life isn't a political statement", etc. BECAUSE OF THAT, I am very glad that people like you are taking the time and energy to dissect why the two are different! If we are going to morally object to one and not the other, people have to understand why, and far too many people don't care, or actively fight against debating this. So, thank you! I hope you understand my criticism. 😅 Edit: grammar

[@FreeTheDonbas]

The self-ID cult is parasitic. It appropriates both the gay movement & the women's movements. The US likes to believe that it's always improving by giving rights to minorities, only now they've run out of minorities & rights, so they've got to invent some. Gay marriage & trans bathrooms are a far cry from the real human rights' struggles of the 60s & 70s, but that's been a hallmark of this century - really lame mimicry of the 20th.

[@SeaBreeze-w9998]

Another way in which the slippery slope worked is that gay activist orgs were in search of a new cause.

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

Are you Christian? Just asking

[@KC_Streams]

Yes I am

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

@KC_Streams ultra based

[@BaconPizzaWaffles]

Fuck, that intro made me realize what a child I am lol

[@ryanparker4996]

Short answer: yes Long answer: y e s

[@GeoSpacePirateMerc]

If Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Jimmy Savile were still alive, then they would definitely all be entirely on your side.

[@stephanie06-9]

I completely agree with you on the issue of businesses that don’t want to cater to gay couples getting married. I think it is bigoted and wrong, but completely within their rights to refuse based on religious views. In the US we have put people out of business for refusing to do gay weddings, and it has backfired. Besides, who would want to entrust any part of their big day to someone who morally opposes your very existence? There are far too many gay-friendly wedding service businesses out there to risk entrusting any aspect of your ceremony to someone hateful. It’s far better to spend your money on someone who truly cares about making your big day special.

[@victorvargas9330]

Right? Those that impose upon the businesses seem like they want attention for the wrong reasons. They probably don't even love each other to begin with if they're so focused on virtue signalling.

[@mhorworshipper7456]

@@stephanie06-9 the constitution and civil rights declare no One can be denied services or discriminated in any way based on religion, race, gender, nationality or sexuality…. A business can not refuse to attend a client request based on any of those aspects… It is not within their rights…. If that were legal: business could refuse to service christians, republicans, homophobes, muslims, sexists, supremacists, hunters, gun supporters… If you were to enter my shop i would be allowed to deny serving you because what you just said and support goes agaisnt my valúes and ethics… or simply because i follow a healthy/sport way of life and you being bigger than average gives a bad image to my business… would that be ok for you?

[@seeyouinthecircle]

It's almost like many are motivated purely by deep-seeded anger, spite, and the desire to both corrupt and seek revenge against normal society (no matter how explicitly tolerated, protected, and celebrated they are en masse in every part of mainstream society), and thus seek to force and enforce the acceptance and approval of their state sanctioned, constitutionally-protected degeneracy SPECIFICALLY on those who kindly wish to have nothing to do with it. Even though there were only a few early landmark cases (the decisions on which necessarily mean future such battles are already automatically won and are thus non-starters), they're still met with near universal, vitriolic support and schadenfreude in the gay community. And, after the Masterpiece gay-wedding cake miscarriage of justice, a trans person, Autumn Scardina, quickly got in line to try to recreate their own time in the spotlight, and enforce their own ideologically-partnered agenda. It's almost like the gay and trans movements are connected in some fundamental, obvious, ideologically relativist & hedonistic ways...

[@stephanie06-9]

@ fair enough, but gay marriage is a very recent win for civil rights, and if we force people to comply, there will be a great deal of backlash, and the outcome could be far worse than having to roll your eyes at someone’s old fashioned homophobia. We are dealing with strong religious convictions from people who believe god is on their side, on something the church has taught for millennia was an abomination against god. We aren’t going to win this through stubborn adherence to the strictest principles. The best we can hope for right now is an agreement to live and let live until that old mindset dies out.

[@stephanie06-9]

@ I don’t think same sex couples marry just to get attention any more than straight couples do. They marry to bond with the person they love to form a life together. It is a travesty they weren’t allowed to do so in a legally recognized manner until nearly the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Not sure if you’re trolling here, but in case you are serious, I just don’t think anyone should be made to do work they find objectionable, and I wouldn’t want my money going to someone I find morally objectionable, who’d deliberately do a bad job anyway.

[@cap1913]

I think a big flaw in the reasoning of homosexuality and more closely homosexual sex is the fact that pleasure causing hormones can be released by fault and that it doesn’t account for the intended reason of pleasure from sex; reproduction.

[@AmariWang-v5w]

A charitable interpretation could understand the main difference between progressive and conservative arguments as being between moral worth and biological function. Progressives might argue: If you accept there is nothing inherently bad about being homosexual then you should accept there is nothing inherently bad about being trans. Conversely, conservatives might argue: if you recognize being trans is a kind of biological defect then you must, for similar reasons accept homosexuality as a similar kind of biological defect. In this sense they are arguing past each other and there is no actual tension between their arguments. Progressives could be correct in recognizing being trans does not make someone bad, that is, less human or morally inferior. And conservatives could also be correct about identifying both groups has having biologically defective traits. That is, traits that fail to match the functioning of biological reproduction. This raises a challenge to your argument about homosexuality being better suited to sexual pleasure. Pleasure is a means to a number of biological ends. Reproduction is a biological end. And emphasizing pleasure fulfillment is like emphasizing symptoms over causes when discussing the value of a cure. Regardless, this distinction says nothing about the intrinsic worth or dignity of individuals. Similarly, we might accept that a blind or deaf individual has a biologically defective trait without making any claims about them being less human or morally inferior.

[@asmkalrizion7078]

the odd thing about the LGBT conversation is how its a matter of preference but for some reason when you say that, people think your demeaning their identity, I can prefer short or tall women, it doesn't make it any more or less of a choice, its just what I like.

[@martineyles]

Not a santa fan, but apparently M&S have a chocolate nativity advent calendar this year.

[@KC_Streams]

How can you not be a fan of santa! :o

[@martineyles]

@@KC_Streams Do you want an argument based on morals or objective truth? For the former, have you noticed how santa gives rubbish gifts to poor kids! However, I'm sure you'd rather consider the objective claims on reality that identifying as Santa would require, including the kind of acceleration required.

[@KC_Streams]

@@martineyles Well he's magical

[@martineyles]

@@KC_Streams Still hates the poor kids!

[@martineyles]

@@KC_Streams Also, gender transition is magical. Men do magic and they're now suddenly women ;-p

[@caldie4338]

Regarding biological function; you can argue about stimulation effects but ultimately not being biologically capable of producing offspring due to attraction is at the very least abnormal. Generally I would say reproduction is a primary purpose of life.

[@AlexPlaysVideoGamez]

What about paraphilia? That’s where they both overlap, one could argue.

[@bluedreamer6564]

I've been very curious for a while as to why you take issue with promiscuity, and would be interested to hear more in depth on that.

[@conn0rized292]

This is pretty much how I feel about homosexuality exactly put into words in an eloquent way. Cheers for that! I do still wonder how homosexuality manifests in a species, as in what could a species possibly have to gain from having individuals with no drive to mate with the opposite sex and produce offspring? At first, I imagined it as a result in humanity being a dominant species in the world, and a portion of us "degenerating" (for lack of a better term) into biologically suboptimal mindsets and behaviors, as homosexuality seems to be so. This is however before I considered examples of other animal species having instances of homosexuality, and that kind of complicates things. Any thoughts on this?

[@lordfarquaad8601]

14:57 That's only an argument for anal sex in general, not solely sex between men.

[@catoticneutral]

True, anal is probably the most overrated gay activity. There's tons of other options.

[@Idziemel1]

To say that anything we do “contradicts nature” is silly. We’re animals - fully shaped by nature and fully constrained by its “laws”. Everything we do is natural, whether anyone likes it or not, because we’re natural creatures. One person's belief in a god that will reward you for your good deeds and punish you for the sins you've committed is as natural as another person's belief that your gender can change every time you wake up. If humans do it, it's natural. We are quite literally incapable of doing anything unnatural.

[@JackAkaJCK]

"all the streets were pathed with gold, so everyone was gay" ~its a long way to Tipperary ReconquistaGay i guess

[@wolfofthewest8019]

10:50 "Homosexuality exists across the animal kingdom." There is absolutely no evidence for that. This is the most classic form of the anthropomorphic fallacy. There is some evidence that some animals engage in same sex sexual dominance, such as male dogs humping other male dogs, but to interpret this as "homosexuality" is problematic at best -- dogs also hump couches, but we'd hardly consider that evidence of a furniture paraphilia. Most of the classic examples fall apart almost immediately on examination -- for example, "gay penguins" don't exist. Penguins don't copulate, so "gay penguins" don't engage in homosexual acts. Infamously, when gay penguins in zoos are paired with female penguins, they cease being "gay" -- to the point that gay activists have complained so bitterly that some zoos refuse to pair "gay' penguins with females, knowing the backlash they will face. Also, your entire understanding of the natural law argument is so flawed as to be almost unrecognizable,

[@KC_Streams]

What do you perceive to be my understanding of the natural law argument? As for whether gay animals exist, a quick search suggests it definitely exists in sheep, but beyond that it's more disputed, so maybe saying it exists across the animal kingdom is inaccurate

[@wolfofthewest8019]

@@KC_Streams "What do you perceive to be my understanding of the natural law argument?" You, like many people, seem to think natural law theory is just the appeal to nature argument. "it definitely exists in sheep" If the behavior observed in sheep is homosexuality, then homosexuality is a genetic disorder that causes dysfunction in recognition of sexual partners, which suggests that homosexuality in humans is disordered.

[@pickupmygroceriespeasant]

Penguins absolutely do copulate you halfwit. How the fuck do you think the egg gets fertilised? How is an external sperm deposit going to work if the egg has a hard, impenetrable shell? Also, no one actually said that homosexuality as in _the sexual orientation_ has been observed in nature. What they actually said was that homosexual _behaviour_ has been observed in nature and that is 100% true. Homosexual behaviour is still a form of homosexuality. You are the one who is anthropomorphising and you have constructed a strawman.

[@RachelRichards]

Do you think the the acceptance of gay marriage as normal/good inevitably leads to the Trans stuff? Could that be a possibility? I think it could be, but only because the widespread acceptance of homosexuality is merely a symptom of decadence in a society. We seem to move from goalpost to goalpost, but we only see the issues in a vacuum - not interconnected. Like it makes sense to want to be compassionate toward people, but maybe it leads to disastrous consequences. Edit: I think your video answered the question. Cheers!

[@WiktoriaMartaKrawczyk]

Thailand used to have legal sex-change surgeries for minors (including allowing the 16-year-old kid of Susie Green, a well-known British TRA, to get their testis removed) and no gay marriage at the same time. Later the country criminilized sterilizing kids (so now even the likes of Susie Green cannot get away with that mutilation!) while also becoming the second Asian society to accept same-sex marriage. The conclusion is that you can have gay acceptance WITHOUT the trans stuff. This particular country is the proof that your people can SIMULTANEOUSLY embrace homosexuals' rights more and become progressively less keen on TRA. And look at Sweden - the first EU country to entirely ban 'puberty blockers' for gender-dysphoric youth - having a population made up almost entirely of people who believe homosexuality should be accepted.

[@udonge1043]

yaoi or yuri who cares love is love ❤

[@NPC20567]

19:00 it did though, unfortunately. If i knew the pride movement was going to take the turn it did i wouldlve rather not got married.

[@howigotover798]

There is nothing like a gay dance club (do they even exist anymore? ) filled with gay men & women friends and the vibe is all about great music and dancing.That is something that just does not exist to the same extent with straight people.

[@Mallard942]

If women and men are different, and children optimally need both, two men or two women is in no way a sufficient substitute for that pairing when it comes to children. When it comes to adoption, I think gay couples should be treated as friends or roommate couples, as two single people of the same sex applying. Looking at the relationship outcome stats of gay relationships, and the high variance between female gay relationships and male ones, I'd say gay couples are not equal to straight couples and should face at the very least, higher scrutiny.

[@Trashboat221]

Nah fuck that A kid can have two Dads or two moms and be just fine Also what if it's a Cis dad and a trans mom how would you feel about that? A lot of Kids only have one parent And lot of kids are waiting for parents as well why discriminate because not being adopted is probably even worse than bad parents All I gotta say now is you better not be anti abortion 😂 Because that would be hypocritical asf

[@SeaBreeze-w9998]

Progressives say you need an even split of men & women on corporate boards but kids don’t need both a mother & father.

[@osmaelias]

Homosexuality does not involve the denial of sexual biology.

[@mitslev4043]

I think we ahve to consider that when conservatives say natural in this sense they are not referring to what can happen but a natural order to things. The same way saying something is inhumane doesn't actually mean that it is a action preformed by a non human. When they say its not natural it is a appeal to the moral order of the universe. The same way we use natural when we talk about the distinction between natural and artificial. Nature here meaning anything not made by humans. Also a ought can be derived from a is just not in an empirical sense but a metaphysical one.

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

My take a Homesexuality is more of a choice and environmental condition than people being born gay.

[@royalchen2361]

Sure environmental factors but I don't think a lot of homosexuals were ever given a choice.

[@sonicthehedgehog1606]

@royalchen2361 Well, they can't be born gay because there's no genetic make up that makes one gay.

[@slimeinabox]

17:40 Can’t agree with you there. Any non governmental service provider should be able to chose not to service anyone. The only punishment should be them loosing that would be customers business.

[@SpergyyToppo5525]

Good video but I still feel like you misunderstand the conservative argument as a con myself. I'll try explaining my position on it. When it comes to the pleasure argument, you're trying to apply a cultural criticism to the act of procreation in saying it's more about pleasure than procreation. It is true from a cultural perspective but that's because human beings are sentient and are capable of recognising and rationalizing concepts like pleasure enabling them to make complex choices about it. This isn't to say animals don't experience pleasure or aren't motivated by it but it is to say they cannot comprehend it or make complex choices around it. This means that procreation for pleasure is a cultural product and not a biological product of human existence. It doesn't carry negative effects but is still not "working as intended". When it comes to the biology argument, yes, homosexuality and even transsexuality exists in the animal kingdom but they exist in situations and species which warrant it, like frogs and fish. In the case of homo sapiens, an evolved primate/mammalian hominid, both don't serve any biological purpose and thereby don't exist. All cultural and biological practices we have conjured which don't exist in primates are downstream from sentience and thereby are unessential to survival. If they were to disappear tomorrow, humanity would still survive. The moral argument against (public) homosexuality or homosexual culture in general comes from its effects on the wider populace (from social contagion) which could inhibit or drastically affect future generations of humanity from a biological perspective. It's similar to disincentivizing engaging in substances, addictive and non addictive, because they carry a risk of adverse effects both on the self and the future generations. But with that said it's still a threshold argument meaning there is a certain threshold as to the actions and behaviours which will have temporary or permanent changes. Cultural promotion of homosexuality and adjacent biologically invalid behaviours on a large scale carries a massive risk of having permanent negative changes with increase in scale (especially beyond the threshold) just like smoking was disincentivized in the 2000s and drugs were disincentivized in the 80s due to their potential negative effects. I also have an additional argument which I use to interrogate the biological existence of homosexuality, the attraction argument. Attraction as it works is a method of mate selection which on an instinctual biological level is intended to increase the quality of life of offspring and therefore increase their biological chances of survival. This is why some traits are universally attractive and vice versa because they indicate risks of damaging the offspring (examples being body fat which could affect the offsprings health, intelligence which could affect the offsprings cognition). For all species with binary sexes, one is biologically built to be attracted to the other for the purpose of producing offspring. In the case of same sex attraction, it is an indication of the attraction system not working as its supposed to, indicating something similar to defect with implications of disease or illness. But both of those imply that it's not an immutable characteristic and can be cured, which is false when it comes to same sex attraction, ignoring any moralistic claims. So the correct way to classify immutable inherited homosexuality is as a dysgenic trait. Induced or acquired homosexuality is a result of the environment which in this case is a self explanatory argument with two possible explanations as to its origin/source. I don't want to elaborate on those cause it wouldn't be suitable for KZbin. Hope that clears up something.

[@spaghetti2246]

I view myself as more of a conservative and I just have to say I really liked your taIbdoI agree that business owners should have the right of association, if asked to provide a service they are uncomfortable with performing. With the caveat that the business does not have some sort of monopolistic situation.