The Positions of Modern "LGBT+ Rights" Orgs Will Shock You (Proof from Their Candidate Vetting)

In this eye-opening discussion, Malcolm and Simone Collins dive deep into a candidate survey from Keystone Equality, exposing controversial LGBTQ+ policy proposals. They critically examine questions about gender-affirming care, educational curricula, and legal protections, highlighting potential unintended consequences and ethical concerns. This video offers a nuanced perspective on complex issues surrounding LGBTQ+ rights, cultural sovereignty, and the balance between protecting vulnerable groups and preventing exploitation by bad actors.

Key topics covered:

* Analysis of LGBTQ+ policy proposals in Pennsylvania

* Critique of gender-affirming care for minors and associated legal liabilities

* Debate on transgender athletes in sports

* Discussion of LGBTQ+ content in school curricula

* Examination of the "LGBTQ+ panic defense" in legal proceedings

* HIV disclosure laws and their implications

* Same-sex marriage and adoption rights

* The concept of cultural sovereignty in LGBTQ+ issues

Simone Collins: [00:00:00] they're saying basically that the state of Pennsylvania is like, you know what, if you receive gender affirming care as a minor, You should have the right up until age 30 to sue your healthcare provider for offering that gender affirming care to you if it turns out that they were acting in a completely flagrantly irresponsible manner Oh, s**t!

They're like, no, no, no, no. Because I think they know. That a lot of people who are getting gender affirming care as minors are going to sue their healthcare providers when, when they reach their twenties, when they reach their thirties, when they're fully myelinated, when they learn more and they're like, Oh no, no, no, we can't do that

Malcolm Collins: So you can be tried with

 Reckless endangerment. If you know you have HIV and you intentionally hide that from another individual and give them HIV., I can't even believe that they are trying to prevent this from the case. That they would, they oppose increasing criminal penalties. This is what I talk about.

I don't know how you can be pro gay and pro Democrat at the same time. Like you have to, who, who suffers? From this being [00:01:00] removed from the law, who is going to predominantly suffer from this being removed? It's going to be gays who are trying to practice safe sex. That is who's going to suffer for this.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello, everyone! In a previous episode, we mentioned that Simone got A letter in the mail because, you know, she's running for office and they ask her, what are your thoughts on various issues? And with a lot of them, you know, when it's like an anti gun organization, she can just basically throw it in the trash because she knows she's not going to come off smelling like roses to these groups.

But

Simone Collins: I was super excited about this because this, this came from this group called Keystone Equality. They, they, they say that they support LGBTQ plus rights. And I'm like, Oh my gosh, like, this is one of those things where You know, we are more socially progressive, at least when it comes to our, our, our cultural sovereignty stance, you know, we may not you know, we may be on the conservative end, but we very much support people having the freedom to pursue whatever culture they want.

So this is slam dunk, like, I should take this candidate survey. So they can endorse me and I [00:02:00] can show to Democrats and libertarians and more socially progressive people in my district that, you know, I, I may be a candidate worth consideration. I was so excited. And then I dive into it and I'm like, you know what I should have, I should have known that there were going to be problems because their logo is not the classic gay flag,

Malcolm Collins: Republican gay flag.

I call it, it is

Simone Collins: as I think one of. The base camp followers named it, which is the best name, the colonizer flag, which includes the additional triangle of white, pink, blue, brown, and black, because race is a sexual orientation. I do not understand

Malcolm Collins: how, like anyone who grew up with like a traditional understanding of non discrimination.

This is wild that this flag thing happened. The, the rainbow represented everything under the rainbow. That was, that was the point. Yeah. The full spectrum. Less inclusive. We need to, we, it's, it's so freaking animal farm. I [00:03:00] really wish I had a good animal farm clip I could use every time I bring this up.

Cause it's so insane. It's like, well, yes, I know we're all equal, but some of us are more equal than others and need special representation on the flag. And we'll just arrange a little. Bit of the historic gay identity with every little notch. And this is where I think in this survey, as we're going over this survey, people are going to learn that the progressive, like what the quote unquote progressives are advocating for with gay bills and LGBT bills these days, it is not something that like any sane person would want.

Yeah, this is, it's, it's

Simone Collins: no longer about protections. It's about. providing privileged status to people and, and frankly, creating a liability for genuinely LGBTQ plus people, because what you're more doing than anything at this point is creating space for bad actors. So let's get into these questions because I found them to be, I was so excited.

I was like, Oh, I'm going to, you know, I'm just [00:04:00] getting all these, all these, right. You know, I love getting questions, right. I love teacher, you know, saying that I was correct. And I got increasingly alarmed. You can

Malcolm Collins: choose almost every single one, but two bad guy on them. I'd rather say that they've become the bad guys and I am mortified at how yeah, I, I just, I think that sometimes,

Simone Collins: I can just read out some of the questions and you can stop when we get, let's just, let's

Malcolm Collins: just go into it right now.

Simone Collins: Did you vote in favor of the fairness act or if you're not an incumbent, did you support adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics and Pennsylvania's non discrimination civil rights act?

So what made me uncomfortable about that is this is just adding additional red tape whereby people are going to be able to

Malcolm Collins: start gender identity. It doesn't, it doesn't say you know, like. That would include things like non binary, which is basically a class that anyone can opt into.

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, so basically this enables you [00:05:00] to, you could, like, this enables any abusive actor to suddenly say, oh, well, I'm non binary and now I'm going to sue you because even though you fired me because I showed up late five weeks in a row and I'm an a*****e.

And I didn't follow the company rules. I'm going to say it's because I was not

Malcolm Collins: allowed everyone to become a protected class, which is obviously a bad idea.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Then there's also, and this sort of more just runs against our cultural sovereignty rules. It says, do you support legislation that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for minors in Pennsylvania?

Now you and I, in the pragmatist guide to sexuality clearly state that like conversion therapy. doesn't work unless it's like literally subjecting you to gay orgies until you get super saturated and tired of them for a while. But then you have to like re up that. So like, based on the evidence we have, based on the evidence.

Yeah. So like one, the only form of gay conversion therapy that works is like intense gay orgies that kind of get you just kind of done with it for a while. And, but you have to like [00:06:00] re inoculate. So one it's not effective anyway, but two, like to, to prevent families from with their minors, you know, giving them the form of therapy or like sort of religious treatment that you think is appropriate runs against our cultural sovereignty stance.

So I couldn't answer that.

 so to add color to our position here. I would be okay with being in camps based on specific modalities of treatment, like what happens to the children at a camp? If these camps are doing something illegal with the kids, then of course they should not be legal. What I am against is being in camps based on the intent of the treatment. Because while we have said no known therapy, modality is effective. Helping same-sex attracted individuals. , either transition. , what they find most attractive. Or.

Suppressing their attraction. That doesn't mean that. It is impossible for such a. treatment. The [00:07:00] method to one day be invented. And some people, some children, even, you know, I know when I was younger, , I had gay friends who would constantly tell me how much they wish they could just not be gay. There are young people who you have a treatment like this existed would want said treatment. And to deny that they exist is to deny the lived experiences of hundreds, of thousands of individuals.. However would I would be open to is a requirement that sending a kid to one of these camps that requires the consent of both parents.

Malcolm Collins: And I would note here that people would be like, well then how do you, you know, if you think that this isn't something that can be cured, for example, quote unquote cured like why are you okay with religious frameworks that you know, tell people to suppress their sexual desires and it's because you don't have to act on them.

Simone Collins: Okay.

Malcolm Collins: You can decide. Yes, this is my preference, but it is not my lifestyle choice. And I want, and it's so [00:08:00] funny that like we get these comments from urban monoculture brain to people who don't get it. You go, you want to force, you know, you want to allow some cultures to force same sex attracted individuals to, you know, marry a woman.

Or join the clergy and it's like, no, I don't want to do that. I want to, unlike you, allow same sex attracted individuals to make choices about which culture they identify with. Yeah.

Simone Collins: And this is just one option. This is one way you can choose to do same sex identification. You can also choose to. Convert into a different culture.

That's all about flamboyant gay life. Or you can convert into a culture that's like, Oh, you're a gay female. That means you're a man into a culture. That's like, Oh, you're, you're just going to be super non binary and not talk about it and do whatever it is you want. Like, I don't care. You're the one who wants to

Malcolm Collins: remove choice from same

Simone Collins: sex attracted individuals.

Yeah. And that's, that's the problem is that's, that's [00:09:00] coercion when, when you start to dictate that. So here's another question. Hold on.

Malcolm Collins: I wanted to point out here. A same sex attracted Catholic priest is not not going out there having sex with people because the Catholics are forcing him to. He chose that lifestyle.

Yeah. Okay? We don't live in a Catholic monarchy. No. You are the one trying to remove choice from him. Yeah. I am trying to give him the maximum amount of choice. You just don't see it that way because you see a choice. To not be a member of your cultural group to not instantly gratify every desire you have as being a non choice

Simone Collins: Yeah So another question they ask is do you support adding sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to pennsylvania's hate crimes law?

And strengthening penalties for those who commit hate crimes. So obviously I couldn't answer yes to this either because you know, we express candid opinions about um Um, being transgender about youth gender transition, about LGBT stuff that [00:10:00] could be interpreted like perhaps in the UK where there are stronger hate crime laws, you know, as a, as a hate crime.

You know, JK Rowling has, has played with these rules on Twitter you know, in Yeah, in the uk. So, you know, we have a YouTube channel where we comment on these issues. We comment on the policies and we talk about the green lines. And if I was in support of adding, you know, strengthening the penalties and adding sexual orientation and gender expression to the hate crime laws in our state, I could be subjecting us to genuine legal liability, like personally.

So I couldn't support that one

Malcolm Collins: again. You cannot extend to hate crimes, opt in sexual identities. And I know non binary people will be like, it's not a choice, but like,

Simone Collins: right. But bad actors, bad actors can make it a choice. Yeah. Like, I mean, there's that one there's that one shooter. Who allegedly identified as, as gender and they're like, Oh no, no, no, that doesn't count.

But like, it does. But it went

Malcolm Collins: out under the hate crime [00:11:00] law. So you don't get to like disavow him because it hurts your community that now you're identified with a mass shooter. Yeah. But you would disavow him like.

Simone Collins: And that's like when, when you're legislating, you have to keep in mind that you're not just legislating for the people you're defending.

You also have to legislate around bad actors who may use this against the very people you're trying to protect. Which of course. Like, you know, loops into the whole turf issue, you know, this is

Malcolm Collins: a problem in Australia right now. As somebody in Australia is being sued because they tried to keep a transgender women off of their app, transgender women who didn't pass.

So keep going. Transgender women were allowed, just not non passing. And that was considered you know, illegal in, in Australia. You are not allowed to have lesbian only spaces from a legal perspective. Now, because anyone can identify this way. You, there is no cutoff for what is transgender.

Well, now any. Cis male sex pest can go on lesbian dating apps and harass lesbians. Like, yeah, of course it's going to piss off. Like, so

Simone Collins: that's, that's another issue, right? Okay. So let's go to the next year. I'm like, okay, come on. There has to be something here. Like I'm, I'm an ally. I'm an ally. Do you [00:12:00] support efforts to modernize and simplify the process for legal name changes, including the removal of the requirement that name changes be advertised in local newspapers or law journals?

Now, keep in mind, this is for people who have things like pending debts who may have committed crimes Like, the thing is, now, this is another law that I can't support because It could be abused by bad actors. And, and I don't really see why, like, if I'm changing my, my gender and I need to legally change my name, is it so bad that I advertise in a, I mean, no one, no one even reads the newspaper.

You're

Malcolm Collins: absolutely right. Like the, the reason why that exists as a law is so people can't use this to like escape debt or defraud people.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And again, like these are not, you're not being forced to post it. On Facebook to your friends and family. If this is a private and sensitive matter, this is, this is advertising this in, in, in a, in a place where if there are legal [00:13:00] pending or financial issues, people will see it.

But again, only bad actors would abuse that. So again, I can't, I can't just like, okay, come on. There's gotta be something. Okay. Well, Oh, here's another one. We're totally going to lose on, do you oppose efforts to prevent. transgender students from participating in all publicly sanctioned for or funded school athletic programs according to their gender identity.

Well, no, that's totally not fair. You know, if you have, you know, a 17 year old natal male who's transitioned to female, who's, you know, competing in athletics, he's going to absolutely school on average, of course it's his female competitors. This is not, this is not their game.

Malcolm Collins: I love it where they will come to you with like studies that have obviously been like combed through by the ultra monoculture to like, and I think that people don't understand what happens when they do that, when you come to me with a study and I can look at this person and be like, Obviously they have an advantage and you go, yeah, but look here.

And if you, [00:14:00] if you, if you split the data this way they don't, that doesn't make me believe that they don't have an advantage. It makes me distrust academic institutions and studies. Okay. , everyone can see that we're being gaslit on this. Like it's not hard. You have to be. Like a religious level of delusional to not be able to look at pictures like the ones I'm putting on the screen and be like, this person has an obvious biological advantage.

And then you can say, well, well, well, well, well, well, some humans have a biological advantage over other humans and that's unfair. And it's like, yeah, that's what sports were about. We created women's leagues. So that women could compete. So

Simone Collins: yeah,

Malcolm Collins: it's women because their

Simone Collins: bodies are on average quite different.

Which is, is, yeah, if

Malcolm Collins: you want to create transgender leagues, that's fine. If you want to create mixed gender leagues, that's fine. I am open to a world where everyone can [00:15:00] strive and S and succeed. But when you in mass allow. trans individuals into women's leagues, you create an environment where young girls who have worked very, very, very hard have their opportunity to be on top taken from them.

Yeah. And that is incredibly cruel.

Also as somebody with the number of trans friends. What I've heard from them. They view laws. That prevent people like Leah Thomas from unfairly engaging in these competitions as primarily protecting trans individuals. it hurts the entire trans community. When you see somebody. Obviously taking advantage of the carve-outs that are meant to protect. Trans people. To get an advantage over other individuals. We used to see jokes about trans people competing in sports teams And being allowed in women's changing rooms. as being fundamentally anti-trans because it [00:16:00] was seen as, so obviously an unfair thing to do.

Miss Mann? Come in, dear. Have a seat. Take off your bra if you'd like. I need to talk. See, I have this problem, I have a terrible secret. Well, Cindy, we all have our little secrets.

Sometimes we do things we're not so proud of. To gain the athletic edge on the competition. Sometimes those secrets come back to haunt us. And I also need to point out here in the case of someone like Leah Thomas, when you create. These carve-outs that mal actors are going to use them. For their own sexual gratification and to well goon on girls to be a sex pest.

If you look at somebody like Leah Thomas, , here's a quote from one of our teammates. We did not give our consent. They did not ask for our consent, but in that [00:17:00] locker room, we turn around and there's a six, four biological man dropping his pants. And watching us undress. And we were exposed to male genitalia. I mean, do. Do people really support this? Like, do they really know what's happening?

 That you have other attorney age girls. In this room and they should be protected from somebody just being able to say, I identify as trans. Now I get to go in a woman's locker room. And all goal at underage girls and forced him to see my genitalium. Do you not see that somebody. Might be abusing these sorts of carve-outs and that this abuse doesn't just hurt these underage girls, but also real trans people. And I, as, somebody who believes the trans narrative, that real trans people exist. There are. Real people in the world. Who are born the wrong gender and just want to be seen. As the correct gender. [00:18:00] Do I believe for a second that somebody who actually just wanted to be seen. As a girl would be walking around. A girls' locker room with their penis hanging out. Did they would be ogling. At naked girls. In a girls' locker room.

Do I believe that. No. No, I don't. If that is what trans is. But if trans is the ability for a guy With an exhibition is in fetish. to assume an identity that allows him into girls locker rooms and forces girls to look at his genitalia. Well, that's a different thing. That's not what I was told trans was, and that's not what I believe.

Anyone who is really trans believes what trans is.. Amy real trans person is going to want laws on the books. That prevent individuals like Leah Thomas from.

Engendering ill will [00:19:00] on their community.. Even if it means. Did they have to undergo. I go. Really pretty trivial sacrifices. Like not being able to participate in intermural sports.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So there's, there's another one here that's actually quite fascinating. They asked, Do you oppose extending the statute of limitations under which a person could file a civil claim related to gender affirming care, which could cause providers to leave the state in response to higher insurance premiums.

So, to give a little bit more color here. There is an amendment, a House Bill 138 that would, according to Keystone Equality, which is, I guess I'm going to out them the organizations that's asking these questions, that would inappropriately increase the statute of limitations for gender affirming care of any kind for up to the age of 30.

30 in cases where a minor was provided such care, they say that if passed, legislation would have the effect of making the cost of liability insurance prohibitive for healthcare workers seeking to provide affirming care [00:20:00] for transgender people. And that the bill intentionally targets a transgender community by making healthcare harder to obtain for all transgender people.

In other words, they're saying basically that the state of Pennsylvania is like, you know what, if you receive gender affirming care as a minor, You should have the right up until age 30 to sue your healthcare provider for offering that gender affirming care to you if it turns out that they were acting in a completely flagrantly irresponsible manner and you were, you regret the care that you were given and you were not given care with a lot of Oh, s**t!

They're like, no, no, no, no. Because I think they know. That a lot of people who are getting gender affirming care as minors are going to sue their healthcare providers when, when they reach their twenties, when they reach their thirties, when they're fully myelinated, when they learn more and they're like, Oh no, no, no, we can't do that because they can't afford the liability insurance for that.

That's what it is. I know. I know. I know. So I'm like, Oh man, I

Malcolm Collins: want to reframe this in, in, in, in, in like a tighter form. Okay. They are [00:21:00] trying to make it illegal for children that they have groomed and then believe like a kid. I'm not saying like the parents think the children have been groomed. Like a minor gets convinced by their psychologist or something like that to get this care later.

ends up realizing that they were brainwashed into getting this or that they weren't really told what the alternatives are, which is something we know is happening at scale now from numerous leaks that have happened. Okay. Then they go back and they try to sue the provider and they would otherwise win the lawsuit.

No, we're not saying just anyone who spuriously decides that they want to sue their provider of this stuff. Yeah.

It is trying to make it so that this individual, even if they would have won this lawsuit, based on the evidence, because the statute of limitations will pass, provably provable that they were brainwashed that 25 Go back on this and keep in mind.

This isn't even that long. It says by the age of [00:22:00] 30, right? Yeah, that's

Simone Collins: that's the the that's where they're trying to extend the statute of limitations with this pennsylvania house bill That is not

Malcolm Collins: that long.

Simone Collins: Yeah

Malcolm Collins: Is they're basically comping right here what I'm seeing here that they know this wave of lawsuits is coming and they are trying to prevent it because they know internally.

Simone Collins: Yeah, it's not just

Malcolm Collins: that. It's not just

Simone Collins: that. Because 1, if this does pass, it will make liability insurance more expensive for healthcare providers who choose to provide gender affirming care.

Malcolm Collins: That because of the level of misconduct. Yeah. Conduct wasn't high,

As to how big is this flood detransition is going to be what we now know from the study that. It came out in 2020 for development of gender, non contentedness during adolescence and early adulthood. That. Of 11 year olds who are discontent with their gender. Over 90% of them by the age of 23 or 100% content with their gender. It just turned out that they were [00:23:00] gay. So you are, if you put 11 year olds who are discontent with their gender on gender affirming care. Sacrificing castrating. Nine gay kids for everyone.

Trans kid, you are quote, unquote saving. That sounds like a pretty anti-gay position to me. The systematic and meth castration of gay children.

Malcolm Collins: you

Simone Collins: know, they could argue, you know, because again, this is, this is the cost of liability insurance.

So they could argue that, well, this is insurers expecting that, that there's bad conduct and there's going to be a lot of expensive lawsuits and then therefore charging prohibitively expensive. No, no, no. I, yeah, I do too, but I'm just, I'm just, I'm just making this as, as balanced as I possibly can, even though I'm, I'm obviously biased, but anyway, so like, I can't, I can't say yes to that.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: That's not even, that's not even, like, that is genuinely monstrous that you would try to prevent that. I know, I know, I know. Here's, here's

Simone Collins: another question from them. Hold on, hold on,

Malcolm Collins: hold on. I want to point out a few other things here. This is like, if, if, if [00:24:00] they know, and I suspect that most of the trans community now knows that puberty blockers have long term consequences, this means all of the doctors who are telling their patients that which we basically know from the evidence isn't true anymore, they can be sued.

They don't want that to happen because lying. to the patient is a key part of gender affirming care. But anyway, continue.

Simone Collins: Yeah. So this, this next question, a little more difficult, I would say, do you oppose efforts at the state or school district level to restrict curricula, ban books, or curtail other age appropriate educational materials or individual expression of the instructor because of LGBTQ content?

Now, I mean, we don't care. Obviously. Well, we don't care if, if, you know, a teacher is gay, we don't care if a teacher says that they're married to someone of the same gender or if they're trans or whatever. But yeah, I mean, in general content that promotes any type of pairing as being the correct type of pairing is something that.

Well, no, I think I'll put,

Malcolm Collins: [00:25:00] I'll put on screen here a, a tick tock where you will see a teacher discussing what she is doing with her elementary school class

My first year in preschool with a class of my own teaching alongside another queer neurodivergent educator and we have been rocking R2's class.

We've been talking about gender and skin color and consent and empathy and our bodies and autonomy. It's been fabulous. But our teaching team is shifting, and a new person is being onboarded. Someone with many years of experience. So today at the lunch table, when the topic of gender and genitals came up, one of our students plainly looked up and said, Well, I'm a girl today.

But I know that Teacher Co isn't. No, they're Enby. And the look on the incoming teacher's face was priceless. She was shocked in a good way. And she just looked around at the two of us and said, This class is incredible, and I am so [00:26:00] impressed.

Malcolm Collins: is talking to them about genitals, about gender expression, about, she's like, yeah, when the topic of genitals came up, I'm like, Whoa, why is genitals coming up with kindergartens as a regular lunchroom discussion?

And why are all of the other teachers okay that this just happened, because that's part of the story? You know, why are you indoctrinating the kids into your culture's framework around gender, which, frankly, is a fringe framework? It is and I think that this is something that fundamentally that the urban monoculture, like people who are really seethed in it, struggle to understand.

It's gender. Is at the end of the day, a completely cultural phenomenon, the way that our culture relates to gender. There is a truth of gender, which is sexual expression, right? But the way you relate to sexual expression is important. Completely. Well, and gender expression, right? So when I talk about like X, Y chromosomes and the difference that makes and how people develop, and sometimes you can have [00:27:00] intersex individuals and different cultures will relate to those individuals differently.

But most cultures have chosen just to lump people broadly into one of two genders, whichever one they seem more like. But that's a cultural decision. The urban monoculture has decided to atomize this almost as much as they can. But that doesn't mean that that's like necessarily the right way to react to it.

And when I look to the unaliving rates within the urban monoculture, it seems to me it obviously isn't the right way to react to it. So am I okay with this system that seems to be correlated with high rates of unaliving oneself and increasing rates? as acceptance for the LGBT community is accepted more.

So it's not due to discrimination because the rates are increasing as acceptance is increasing. Am I okay with that my child being exposed to that cultural system? No. And, and, and this is, this is one of the things that always got me about the Florida law, like the don't say gay law. I know the person who worked on drafting this law and I had actually believed the urban [00:28:00] monocultures lie that the law made it so that gay teachers could not tell their students that they were gay.

And actually among Republicans when they were drafting the law, she's like, yeah, actually, In the first draft of the law, it could have been read that way. And we, the Republicans, before it went out, changed it so it couldn't be read that way, because that isn't something that modern Republicans actually want.

They just don't want to get brainwashed.

Simone Collins: Okay. Let me, let me go to the next one. This is actually interesting and I've never heard of this before. They asked, do you support prohibiting the LGBTQ plus panic defense in legal proceedings in Pennsylvania? So I asked perplexity what this was because I'd never heard of it before.

Basically it's one, not even really a defense that's used in murder cases a lot. But basically it's, it's something that sometimes defenders try to use. To say like, oh, this person was so freaked out related to the other person's lgbtq plus [00:29:00] status, that that's why they murdered them or did something who

Malcolm Collins: are underselling it.

The panic defense comes into play when a person lies about their sexual gender. Yeah. That's

Simone Collins: where it most likely comes into it. So

Malcolm Collins: it happens if a today they be trans. Historically they would've been gay. You know, there's been changing the way we relate to gender as a society. But a, a, a trans person, for example lies to a person uh, that they were cis um, and then when that person realizes, often because they haven't undergone, you know, full, they, they, they say, oh, you, I just had sex with you and now I see you have a penis, or, you know, something like that they freak out and they murder the person.

This is obviously a horrifying thing. But here's sort of the way I would put it. Do I think that Muslims should be able to use of the defense? In a murder case, this person secretly slipped me pork intentionally. [00:30:00] Because I view that as a similar kind of offense in this offense, the individual has knowingly done something that the Muslim thinks is going to cause them to be tortured for all eternity and maliciously done it for their own momentary pleasure, maybe a laugh or something like that.

While I do think it is a truly monstrous thing for an individual to do because that's, that's why these people are so mad. Like, they're acting like they're mad because the person is

Simone Collins: LGBT. It's kind of, it's not something that's used to get people off the hook. It's just, it's, it's something that's used in a court of law to be like, They were driven insane.

They panicked because of their belief structure. And the reason why a lot of people who support LGBTQ rights are like, Hey, let's just not allow people to use this defense at all, is it's offensive to even suggest that being LGBTQ plus in some way could Would cause someone to freak out that much.

That's not

Malcolm Collins: what they're freaking out about. That's the point. They are [00:31:00] not freaking out that their partner is gay. They're freaking out that they just had sex with a guy. I know, I know, I know.

Simone Collins: But Malcolm, what you're missing is that, is that the reason why they're trying to remove this from defense cases is that that shouldn't be something that's normalized.

Like you shouldn't be allowed to, to wake up next to someone who you thought was one Sex

Malcolm Collins: shouldn't be

Simone Collins: allowed to hold their religious belief. Exactly. Yes. So anyway, that's you know, I don't, I, I think people should be allowed to give that context in the court of law because like, like to your point, if someone was fed pork, when it's against their religion, I would want to know that in a court case.

Cause I couldn't, I would want to know like, Why were they freaking out so much? Like, this is weird. You know, you need to know the context. It

Malcolm Collins: should be admissible in a court context, but it shouldn't necessarily get them off, but that's the way. But it doesn't, and it

Simone Collins: doesn't, and it hasn't. They're basically just saying this shouldn't be discussed at all.

So that's, that's one. And it's interesting.

Malcolm Collins: Which is actually kind of insane. The court, who's making the [00:32:00] decision, shouldn't be allowed to know that this person who was constricted into sleeping was a guy.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: In their mind. Maybe not in the other person's mind, but in their mind, they thought it was a guy.

Simone Collins: So anyway, this goes back to this next question ties back to what we were discussing in terms of like, HIV positivity in the LGBTQ plus world. They asked, Do you oppose increasing criminal penalties for people who are HIV positive? When those who are not HIV positive would not be subject to those increased penalties for the same offense.

So here they're basically saying like, you know, Should people be penalized for being irresponsible when they have HIV and could hurt other people because of it? No,

Malcolm Collins: no, no, no, this is, this is about a specific legal statute. So you can be tried with It's like reckless endangerment, right? I don't think it's yes.

It's reckless endangerment. If you know you have HIV and you intentionally hide that from another individual and give them HIV. I, I, I can't even believe that they are trying to prevent this from the case. That we would, yeah, that, that they [00:33:00] would, they oppose increasing criminal penalties. This is what I talk about.

I don't know how you can be pro gay and pro Democrat at the same time. Like you have to, who, who suffers? From this being removed from the law, who is going to predominantly suffer from this being removed? It's going to be gays who are trying to practice safe sex. That is who's going to suffer for this.

Who benefits from this? Gays who are preying on other gay Yeah. Yeah. Bad actors.

Simone Collins: Bad actors. That's a key thing here. That is a,

Malcolm Collins: why would you try to protect that if you wanted to protect the gay community? Because they don't care about the gay community. Right, right, right.

Simone Collins: They

Malcolm Collins: care about the bad actors.

That's literally it.

Simone Collins: I actually found two questions here that I do support. So that they're right next to each other. One is, do you support guaranteeing the rights of LGBTQ plus parents to seek and retain custody of their children? Including foster and adopted children without bias based on their status?

Totally, it should have nothing to do with it. And two, the second one that we would finally [00:34:00] say yes to, do you support equal rights for legally married same sex, same gender couples as those granted legally married couples who are the opposite sex or gender? Totally. Doesn't

Malcolm Collins: matter if, you know. I actually want to push back on what some of our fans will say on these two issues.

Oh, yeah. The one is, is some of our fans will say, how dare you allow a gay couple to adopt kids? Like, what about the effects that has on the kids? And I'm like do you know how bad foster care is? Right. Like, this is demonstrably better for the child.

Simone Collins: Well, like, anyone who, who typically passes the requirements to adopt a child or whatever, you know, like, and also one Having a kid.

So one adopting is really hard. If you can adopt, you're probably way above like the standard of most parents who biologically have kids. And two, if you are conscientious enough to make the money and go through the intense hardship of having children, especially if you're a gay couple, lesbians, it's a tiny bit easier, but gay is like really hard to have kids.

And this is also

Malcolm Collins: why we can't trust the data that [00:35:00] says, because if you look at the data on, do gay parents have a negative effect on their children growing up? It turns out that they actually have much more successful and mentally healthy kids. Yeah. Because they're like the people who are capable of having kids.

Yeah. The reason why this is the case is because of the gating that's required. The barriers to entry. people to end up getting access to kids, so it basically skews the study, but this is relevant if you're trying to bar these couples who are having better outcomes from even adopting when keep in mind kids who are adopted can often, if they want to say, I don't want to be with this family anymore, or I find this situation abusive.

But they're choosing not to because they believe this is better for them than what the alternative would be. How dare you make that decision for the child? In the second case, the, the, the gay married couple should have the same rights. We had a comment in our last video. They said, well, these people aren't married.

It's not a real marriage because you can't have a real marriage between same sex people. I'm like, from your cultural [00:36:00] perspective, that's true. But there are versions of Christianity, and there are versions of Judaism, and there are versions of Islam, and there are versions of Buddhism that do believe that.

So you can't just annul other religions because it's not what your religion is. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That comes back to cultural sovereignty. Being insane, one, and then two, even if like, like you 100 percent believe this and you think that our society is made worse for them being able to marry, right? You know, you don't have the voting power to enforce that.

You know, all you do is hurt Republican chances of winning by going out there and being a hard liner and trying to get this into Republican policy positions. Why are you doing this? Even the majority of the Republican base don't want this. You know, over, it's like it was 61 percent the last time I looked at the Republican base, not the Democrat base, the Republican base [00:37:00] wants gays to be able to get married.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Especially the younger Republican base. So it's only a matter of time until the system. Only

Malcolm Collins: 30 percent of the young Republican base didn't want gays to be able to get married. It is, no, you are not helping anyone. And are you even helping the people you're banning from getting married? Do you think, okay Do you really want to, do you really want to suppress marriage?

No, no, no, no, no, that's not what I mean. You prevent a gay couple from getting married. I think increased or decreased the probability that they find Jesus. Obviously you've decreased the probability. Fair point. Because they're stuck in a degenerate, you know, uh, Yeah, you're forcing them away from. They now see you as the enemy because you kept them from entering a marriage.

And I also think here, this is where I get to the ordering of sins. And I think that this is something where classic Christianity is incredibly unbiblical, and I find it very frustrating. Okay. You are a sinner, [00:38:00] but Jesus still saved. How dare you try to deny his salvation to somebody else because they're going through some phase in their life or something like that, right?

Um, Look at a rank order of sins. Yes. I think if you go with a classical interpretation, of Christianity, sleeping with a partner of the same sex is absolutely a sin. Okay. Do I think that that prevents these people from getting into heaven? If you read the Bible no more than the person who speaks poorly to his wife or too much, or Yeah, there's a lot of sins out there.

Or, there are so many sins, where there's sins every night, you know, watching football games and going out there and contributing to the community. That's, that's not how it works in [00:39:00] most versions of the Catholic Church. Yeah. Um, And uh, we've just sort of twisted it on a tag, you know, we should adjudicate morality like this, and it's like, uh, no, I'm sorry.

A gay couple that is married. Having sex is not more of a sin. Then an unmarried couple having sex then premarital sex, biblically speaking. Do you want to ban premarital sex as well? Or it's just you pick on the sins where you think you can get the public on your side.

It's the second then you're just a bully. And that's not. That's not what Jesus asked of you. , let these people know that they're sending yes. Teach them the Bible. Yes, but you cannot possibly adjudicate all of the Christian moral system. People need to see the light of it and live by it themselves.

Malcolm Collins: The, the thing that really gets me about these individuals who are like, yeah, we need to make it part of the party platform that like we you know, [00:40:00] ban gay marriage and stuff like that, it's like.

 , they, they are so pathetic looking from my perspective because they know this isn't helping with their mainstream issues. They know that doing stuff like this only hurts Republicans chances of victory. They are just LARPing about a world that they don't exist in.

You don't live in a world where your. Moral framework is the dominant moral framework. You look as buffoonish as the man who plays with the samurai sword and daydreams about living in a world where their skill with a samurai sword is going to matter. They don't live in feudal Japan. You don't live in 1950s America.

Okay, you live in modern America, so why don't we work for the things that can actually get passed and help all of us on the right, instead of doing this whole splitting, splitting, splitting, splitting purity test, when the only way to pass your purity test is to be [00:41:00] some extremist that doesn't represent a right wing voter.

Like this is insane at this point. All right, even if you disagree with us on this, why are you fighting? You're fighting because you are LARPing. You are the fat bearded man in a fedora flailing around a katana in his backyard dreaming about the day he can use this in a fight to the death in feudal Japan.

He doesn't live in feudal Japan. You don't live in 1950s America.

As a quick aside here, some people in the comments of another video, we're trying to argue against gay marriage from quote unquote, a secular perspective, except marriage. Isn't a secular thing. It's. It's not the piece of paper that they want. It's the ability to undergo the particular marriage ceremony that they want. , to, to be this new status of a married instead of not married.

That's what comes from a marriage.

[00:42:00] Because it's a religious thing. And because there are some versions of various religions that allow gay people to marry. We as a secular society should not be preventing it.

And if we do that, we have the government come in and begin to adjudicate, which interpretations of the Bible are correct in which are wrong in which religions are we allowed to practice.

And I don't think any real. Christian wants government bureaucrats, coming in and saying these parts of the Bible.

Should be seen this way. And these parts of the Bible should be seen this way because we know exactly what they're going to do when they start doing that.

Malcolm Collins: Um, That's, that's, anyway. Right. And, and I think that this is One of the things that I've, I've been angling for recently is to get you on the board of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Because I think that they're now the only group that really supports. Well, and we got to raise

Simone Collins: a lot of money for them.

Malcolm Collins: I don't know what to tell you. That's what we've been told. If we can raise more money for them, we can, we can get on the board, which would be fun. But Dear Basecamp donors,

Simone Collins: please donate to the Log [00:43:00] Cabin Republicans and say, I came here.

Malcolm Collins: What I love about this episode is that oh, by the way, people who don't know what the Log Cabin Republicans are, it's the gay Republican lobby. They're really awesome.

Simone Collins: They're fantastic. They're

Malcolm Collins: actually like really fun people. Gay Republican parties are like the most fun parties. You can go to because they are all so based and by based, and this is the thing, a lot of people, they're like, this isn't based because it's not like conservative or straight conservative.

If you're just repeating everything that your group wants to hear, you are the

Simone Collins: antithesis of based.

Malcolm Collins: Being based means saying what you believe is true, regardless of what your group or other groups or society is going to say about it. You know, like, We've had some of our gay friends be like, well, I agree with conservatives on everything, but like they're, they're gay issues.

I just can't, I'm like, that's not the, the, the mainstream, even in Trump's platform at the RNC, the Republican platform this year does not have marriage as being between a man and a [00:44:00] woman. It says that we should think to find marriage and we should try to make, you know, more marriages happen, but it does not.

And we should, marriage is great.

 So, okay, here's where things left off with the survey . 'cause I, I, I obviously can't take this survey.

Simone Collins: I, I, it just is not gonna work out well. Can't take it back. Yeah. Yeah. I, I responded to her to the CEO of this organization and I said, oh, you know, thanks. I've added this to my list of surveys to review. TLDR. You know, we're, we're very transparent about our stance on lgbtq plus issues on our podcast, and I linked to our podcast, so, oh, sh shoot.

They're gonna find out if they actually, I don't, I don't think they'll watch any of it. And I'm like, you know, the gist is that, you know, we support cultural sovereignty, you know, that we believe everyone should be allowed to live the lifestyle that they want, but we're also against imposing your cultural values on other groups.

AKA we're against cultural imperialism. And that's, that's just where I left it. So, these lovely, these lovely people from Keystone Equality may come to the channel and absolutely [00:45:00] hate everything that we're saying here and hate the fact that we've highlighted their candidate survey and suggested that they're leaving room for bad actors.

That is ultimately going to damage the LGBTQ plus community by giving them a bad name. They're

Malcolm Collins: murdering gay

Simone Collins: people. They are, they

Malcolm Collins: are. Okay. Yeah. Malcolm's shooting. No, no, it's, it's very clear, like, especially the one where you can't be prosecuted for lying to someone about your HIV status. That hurts.

Simone Collins: No, no, no, that, they were, that was in opposition to increased penalties, but yeah, I mean, yeah.

Malcolm Collins: No, no, no, no, no, they said, hold on. You, you, you didn't read it correctly then. They said that your HIV status should not be able to increase the penalties you are subject for, for any form of action. What that means is a HIV person telling someone, I don't have HIV and sleeping with them, should not legally be treated any differently than a non HIV person telling someone they don't have HIV and sleeping with them.

The HIV cannot be taken any differently. into consideration [00:46:00] when the, when, when the legal status is judged, it would make it impossible to in any way punish someone for lying about their HIV status. That's the intention of that law and that will kill gay people.

Simone convinced me of one possible alternative as to what this wording may mean. It may be to prevent higher penalties. In great cases where the attacker had HIV positive status. , I don't see this as particularly better because, , who would a gay man be griping, but another gay man.

So it just further victimizes the gay community.

Cause I can't think of any other instance where HIV status would be taken into account for more punishment in a crime other than grape or lying to someone about it.

Simone Collins: Well, maybe we can share a link to the Google survey, which they might take down.

But what I can say, here's our one nice thing we're going to say, okay, is that They used a Google form and most of these packs, most of these organizations, [00:47:00] they give you a fricking like PDF that you're supposed to fill out. There's like no room to put anything. It's like terribly antiquated. It looks like it was copied three times from like a paper printout.

At least they are civilized in technology. Okay. So good guys. Love it. Love you too, Malcolm. Okay. Bye. Love you. Okay, bye. Love

Malcolm Collins: you. Bye. Love you. Okay. Okay.