u/Express_Arrival1533

Okay y'all, I genuinely don't even know how to explain my save anymore, so I'm just going to try.

I bought Royalty & Legacy because I wanted a cute little royal family save.

BIG MISTAKE.

I now have a fucking supernatural royal dynasty where nobody knows who the hell is related to who anymore.

So basically, Grand Duke Tybalt Capp is the King, and he's married to Ermelinda Abrantes, who's an Elder, Grand Duchess of Ondarion, AND the head of the Abrantes Dynasty. They have two infant sons, Todd and Tristan, who are currently the only confirmed humans left in this immediate family.

BUT Tybalt also has another son named Virgilio, who's Ermelinda's stepson, and Virgilio got bitten by this dude Duncan and became the first vampire in the family. Then Tybalt caught his own vampire son drinking blood from a human, and now father and son are fucking enemies.

AND THEN Tybalt himself got bitten by a werewolf, so now the King is turning into a werewolf while his wife is turning into a vampire and his son is already a vampire.

Meanwhile, Duncan, who is Tybalt's son-in-law because he's married to Celeste, decided to cheat on Celeste with Celeste's sister Beatrice, moved out with Beatrice, and they're planning to have a baby together.

BUT Duncan ALSO has a secret affair with Romeo Monty, who is married to Juliette.

AND IT GETS WORSE.

Juliette is actually Tybalt's biological sister, meaning Romeo is Tybalt's brother-in-law, and their son Dante is Tybalt's nephew. Dante is also best friends with Tybalt and somehow became part of the Cap Dynasty despite coming from the rival Monty side.

So basically the King's son-in-law is secretly sleeping with the King's brother-in-law while the brother-in-law is married to the King's sister, and the King's nephew is best friends with the King and has joined the King's Dynasty despite being from the rival family.

AND DUNCAN ISN'T DONE.

Because Duncan also bit Beatrice, Celeste, Virgilio, and Ermelinda, meaning Beatrice and Celeste are becoming vampires, Ermelinda is becoming a vampire, Virgilio is already a vampire, AND Duncan himself is a vampire.

So now the King is a werewolf, his wife is becoming a vampire, his son is a vampire, his son-in-law is a vampire, his son-in-law's wife is becoming a vampire, his son-in-law's girlfriend is becoming a vampire, and the only normal people left are apparently two fucking babies.

AND THEN VIRGILIO STARTED MESSING AROUND WITH TWO WOMEN AT ONCE—Jawara from the Darong Dynasty AND Duchess Cordelia, who's married to Duke Thiago, who is Tybalt's stepson.

Virgilio has already had sex with Cordelia multiple times, so I'm sitting here wondering if she's pregnant while he's simultaneously involved with Jawara.

OH, AND I ALMOST FORGOT:

I was originally going to have Tybalt and Juliette have an affair and a secret baby until I discovered THEY ARE SIBLINGS because apparently their deceased parents, Crodelia and Caliban, are the parents of both of them.

So THANK GOD the flirting didn't work. 😭

At this point I genuinely don't know if I'm playing The Sims or writing Game of Thrones: Vampire Edition.

I just wanted a royal family. 😭

Homophobia is primarily rooted in cultural, religious, or psychological beliefs rather than evidence that homosexuality itself causes harm.

I'm genuinely curious to understand the reasoning behind homophobia. As a gay person, I don't see homosexuality as inherently harmful to individuals or society, so it's difficult for me to understand why some people oppose it so strongly.

From my perspective, many anti-gay views seem to be based on traditional social norms, religious teachings, or personal discomfort with lifestyles that differ from their own, rather than on objective evidence that same-sex relationships cause measurable harm. That's the claim I'd like to discuss.

If you consider yourself homophobic or believe homosexuality is wrong, I'd genuinely appreciate hearing your reasoning. Please explain why you hold that view, what experiences or beliefs shaped it, and what evidence you think supports it. I'm not looking for insults or a flame war-I want to understand the underlying logic behind these beliefs and have a respectful discussion about them.

I'm honestly so tired of the internet acting like it knows Ariana Grande's medical history because of a few photos.

Every time she posts anything, the comments are full of people saying:

- "I miss the old Ari."

- "She looked healthier in 2018."

- "She definitely has an eating disorder."

- "She looks sick."

- "Someone needs to help her."

Can we stop pretending we know what's going on?

Being concerned for someone is one thing. Diagnosing them from Instagram photos is another.

What's especially frustrating is that Ariana herself has already addressed this. She said the body people constantly compare her current body to—the version everyone calls her "healthy" era—was actually the unhealthiest she'd ever been. She explained that she was taking antidepressants, drinking while on them, eating poorly, and was at one of the lowest points in her life.

That's exactly why comments like "I miss the old Ari" rub me the wrong way.

If you're talking about her music, her style, or that era creatively, that's completely fine.

But if you're talking about her body, you're literally romanticizing a period of her life that she has said was incredibly unhealthy.

Healthy doesn't have one look.

Unhealthy doesn't have one look either.

The internet has this terrible habit of assuming that if someone is at a certain weight, they must automatically be healthy—or automatically be sick. That's not how medicine works, and it's definitely not something strangers on social media are qualified to determine.

I've also seen people throw around diagnoses like they're facts. Saying, "She definitely has anorexia," or any other mental or physical illness based on pictures is irresponsible. None of us know her medical history. None of us are her doctors.

And before someone says, "We're just concerned," remember that concern doesn't require speculation.

There's a huge difference between:

«"I hope she's doing okay."»

and

«"She definitely has this disorder."»

One expresses compassion. The other claims knowledge you simply don't have.

Ariana has also said that people have commented on her body since she was a teenager and that society has become way too comfortable analyzing other people's appearance. She called it dangerous, and honestly, she's right.

At the end of the day, none of us know Ariana personally.

Going to concerts, following her career for years, or being a longtime fan doesn't suddenly give us access to her private life.

If you're genuinely worried about her, then wish her well.

But stop acting like social media detectives who can diagnose someone from a red carpet photo.

That's not concern.

That's parasocial behavior.

Before anyone gets mad, this is just my opinion.

I understand why people are excited that KATSEYE is singing again after songs like "Pinky Up." It is refreshing to hear a more vocal-focused track. But I honestly think people are letting that fact alone carry the entire song.

To me, "Animal" is a very generic pop song. It isn't bad, but it isn't groundbreaking either. The instrumental feels pretty empty, the production is safe, and it sounds like something I've heard dozens of times before. Other than the breakdown in the middle, there really isn't a moment that makes me want to replay it.

What confuses me is seeing people call it KATSEYE's best song or even say it's better than "Gabriela." I just don't hear it. It feels like some fans are overhyping it simply because they're singing instead of judging the song on its own merits.

It's okay to enjoy the song, but I don't think "they're singing" automatically makes it an amazing track. If another artist released this exact same song, would people still be calling it a masterpiece? That's a genuine question.

Another thing that bothers me is the fandom's tendency to act like every release is flawless. It's okay to admit your favorite group has songs that are just... decent. Not every comeback has to be revolutionary.

Before anyone gets mad, this is just my opinion.

I understand why people are excited that KATSEYE is singing again after songs like "Pinky Up." It is refreshing to hear a more vocal-focused track. But I honestly think people are letting that fact alone carry the entire song.

To me, "Animal" is a very generic pop song. It isn't bad, but it isn't groundbreaking either. The instrumental feels pretty empty, the production is safe, and it sounds like something I've heard dozens of times before. Other than the breakdown in the middle, there really isn't a moment that makes me want to replay it.

What confuses me is seeing people call it KATSEYE's best song or even say it's better than "Gabriela." I just don't hear it. It feels like some fans are overhyping it simply because they're singing instead of judging the song on its own merits.

It's okay to enjoy the song, but I don't think "they're singing" automatically makes it an amazing track. If another artist released this exact same song, would people still be calling it a masterpiece? That's a genuine question.

Another thing that bothers me is the fandom's tendency to act like every release is flawless. It's okay to admit your favorite group has songs that are just... decent. Not every comeback has to be revolutionary.

I’m interested in hearing different perspectives on this topic.

My view is that homosexuality is a natural part of human diversity, and that masculinity and femininity are not things that are strictly limited to one gender. I believe men can enjoy feminine things, express themselves in feminine ways, or have feminine traits without it making them any less of a man.

I’d like to hear from people who agree, disagree, or have a different perspective. What are your arguments and why do you think that way?

Please keep the discussion respectful — I’m looking for an actual conversation, not just insults.

I want to talk about something I keep seeing in debates about LGBTQ+ people: a lot of arguments that are presented as “scientific” are actually based on misunderstandings, stereotypes, or personal beliefs rather than evidence.

Let’s go through some of the common arguments.

1. “Being gay is unnatural because God says so.”

A religious belief and a scientific argument are two different things.

If someone believes in God, that belief can be meaningful to them personally. However, when the question is “is homosexuality natural?” the answer has to come from things we can observe, study, and test through fields like biology, psychology, and anthropology.

The existence of God is a matter of faith, while science examines physical evidence. A religious text may guide someone’s beliefs, but it is not biological evidence in a scientific debate.

When scientists study homosexuality, they look at observable evidence. Same-sex sexual behavior has been documented across many animal species and across human societies throughout history. The American Psychological Association states that heterosexual and homosexual behavior are both normal aspects of human sexuality and that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

Research has also shown that same-sex sexual behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom, including among non-human primates.

So the argument that homosexuality is automatically “unnatural” does not match what we observe in nature.

---

2. “Gay people are unnatural because they cannot reproduce together.”

This argument also does not work logically.

Not every natural human trait or behavior exists solely for reproduction. Humans have many behaviors, relationships, and biological traits that are not directly about creating children.

Also, reproduction does not define whether something exists naturally. Infertile people exist naturally. Elderly people exist naturally. People who choose not to have children exist naturally.

The question is whether same-sex attraction exists as part of human variation — and evidence shows that it does.

---

3. “Certain races of gay people are worse than others.”

This argument is not about biology. It is based on stereotypes.

The question of whether homosexuality exists naturally has nothing to do with whether someone is Black, white, Asian, Latino, or any other race.

Trying to rank gay people by race is not scientific. It is applying social prejudice to something that is not determined by race.

---

4. “A feminine man is trying to become a woman.”

This is another misunderstanding.

Femininity does not equal being a woman.

Masculinity and femininity are influenced by culture and social expectations. Clothing, hairstyles, makeup, jewelry, and behaviors are not biologically owned by one gender.

History proves this. Men in different cultures and time periods have worn things that many modern societies label as feminine. High heels, for example, were originally associated with men, including Persian cavalry and European aristocrats.

Men have also used makeup and decorative clothing throughout history.

A man wearing something feminine does not automatically mean he is trying to be a woman. It means he is expressing himself in a way society may label as feminine.

---

5. “Being transgender is a mental illness.”

This argument misunderstands what medical organizations actually say.

Being transgender itself is not classified as a mental disorder. The World Health Organization moved gender incongruence out of the mental disorders section in ICD-11, recognizing that transgender identities themselves are not forms of mental illness.

Some transgender people experience gender dysphoria, which refers to significant distress related to a mismatch between experienced gender and assigned sex. Treatment focuses on reducing that distress, and for many people, gender-affirming care can be part of improving their well-being.

---

At the end of the day, people are allowed to have personal beliefs and religious views. But when someone makes claims about biology, nature, or medicine, those claims should be based on evidence.

Science is not about what someone personally feels should be true. It is about studying what we can observe and what the evidence shows.

🏳️‍🌈 Homosexuality, biology, and whether it is “natural”

American Psychological Association (APA) — Understanding Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

Explains that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that same-sex attraction is a normal variation of human experience.

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation

American Psychological Association — Sexual Orientation & Marriage Policy Statement

Discusses research showing homosexuality is not a mental illness and addresses discrimination and stigma.

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/marriage

Nature Communications — The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals

Peer-reviewed research documenting same-sex sexual behavior in mammals and discussing its evolutionary context.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41290-x

---

🧬 Same-sex behavior in animals

Nature Communications — Sexual behavior research collection

A collection of peer-reviewed studies about animal sexual behavior.

https://www.nature.com/subjects/sexual-behaviour/ncomms

---

🏳️‍⚧️ Transgender identity, gender dysphoria, and medical organizations

World Health Organization (WHO) — Gender incongruence and transgender health in ICD-11

Explains that transgender identities were moved out of the mental disorders chapter in ICD-11 and discusses gender-affirming healthcare.

https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd

American Psychiatric Association — Transgender People, Gender Dysphoria, and Mental Health

Information on transgender identity, gender dysphoria, and mental health.

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-dysphoria

---

👔 Gender roles, clothing, femininity, and masculinity changing through history

History of Men Wearing Makeup (Byrdie)

Shows examples of men using makeup throughout history, including Ancient Egypt, Rome, and European societies.

https://www.byrdie.com/history-makeup-gender

History of High Heels and Men’s Fashion

Explains how high heels were originally associated with men, including Persian soldiers and European aristocrats.

https://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/fashion/style-guide/why-high-heels-were-originally-made-for-men-and-how-they-became-a-womens-fashion-staple/articleshow/131877453.cms

American Medical Association (AMA) — LGBTQ health resources

https://www.ama-assn.org/

I’ve never really understood the argument that you can always separate the art from the artist, because sometimes the person behind the art is directly connected to the reasons why people have a problem with it.

A lot of people say “I can separate the art from the artist” when an artist does something horrible, but at some point I feel like that argument stops making sense. If someone commits something genuinely disturbing or harmful, it’s hard for me to understand how people can completely disconnect the thing they created from the person who created it.

It’s like looking at food that is beautifully presented but knowing the ingredients are disgusting or unsafe. You can say “well, it looks good,” but that doesn’t erase what’s actually there. The appearance doesn’t change the reality.

I also don’t understand this mindset when it comes to artists who are openly racist, homophobic, hateful toward certain religions, or constantly promote views that go against the people supporting them. If someone is actively against something that affects you or your community, why continue to financially support them just because they make good music, they’re attractive, or they have a certain image?

And one thing I especially don’t understand is when people give certain artists a pass because of “pretty privilege.” Someone being beautiful, talented, charismatic, or entertaining doesn’t make harmful actions disappear. A person can create good art and still be a bad person. Both things can exist at the same time.

I’m not saying everyone has to have the exact same reaction or that nobody can ever enjoy something made by a flawed person. But I think people need to be honest about what they’re choosing to support and why. Sometimes “separating the art from the artist” feels less like a thoughtful argument and more like a way for people to avoid acknowledging uncomfortable truths.

I want to address the issue of homophobia, particularly when it is justified through religious beliefs. I find it difficult to accept the idea of a God-whose existence lacks direct evidence-who would condemn me to hell for disbelief, yet somehow allow forgiveness for serious wrongdoings like rape. The religious texts that many rely on were written and rewritten by countless people over thousands of years, which raises questions about their

reliability and authority. It seems inconsistent that some Christians claim to love everyone but at the same time express hatred toward LGBTQ+ individuals. Moreover, sexual orientation is not a choice. Just as a person does not choose to be straight from birth, no one chooses to be gay. Given this, it is illogical to condemn someone for an inherent part of who they are, especially based on beliefs that are themselves unproven.