Is there any valid reason to oppose gay marriage or hate trans people?

[megan20022]

Why are so many so concerned with what doesn’t impact them in any possible way?

[abc3643]

No, of course not.

I will let retired Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy describe marriage in his Opinion of the Court for the case Obergefell v. Hodges, the case decided in June 2015 which allowed same-sex marriage throughout the US.

======

LINK IN SCOTUS ARCHIVE:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/576BV.pdf#page=689
(Page 644, PDF Page 689)

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

[BCRanger10]

To oppose gay marriage? Yes.

Marriage and the family are the basis of society via the natural procreation and the education and formation of children. If this to be so, there has to be a definition and set of criteria and requirements for what marriage is. This includes who participates in it. This is what makes marriage different from other relationships. Friendships come and go, business open and close, but marriage is a solemn seal. It's ultimately in this framework that children are brought into the world and a family is made. From families come neighborhoods, and then cities, and then states and nations.

So marriage is truly about the formation of children and the next generation. What same-sex marriage does is it attempts to expand or alter the definition of what marriage is. Rather than the loving creation and formation of children, it becomes about personal satisfaction. Of course, you ought to have a happy and satisfying life with the person you've married; that love is the greatest education and formation of children and will teach them more about life than they will ever learn in school. But that satisfaction is not the true, ultimate, and complete aim of marriage. And that goes back to what I said at the beginning: Marriage must have unique characteristics in order for it to be "marriage". In a way, the very term "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" is an inconsistency.

So there's that.

To hate trans people? I'll need a definition of "hate" in order to answer that question. And no, disagreement is not "hate".

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

@BCRanger10
Marriage is not the single source of formation of children and the next generation, no, this isn't true.

It is not in this sole framework that children are brought into the world and a family is made, no, this isn't true either.

You're talking about your view of family and making it look like it would or should universally describe family.

But you have no legitimacy to make that universal. Because plenty of kids are born out of marriage, they and their parents constitute the very same family founding neighbourhoods and beyond that you mentioned. If you want to exclude them from your definition of what family is, you can, but then you don't get to advocate for family, only for your own personal and ostracizing vision of it.

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not "Marriage is not the single source of formation of children and the next generation, no, this isn't true.

It is not in this sole framework that children are brought into the world and a family is made, no, this isn't true either."

I didn't say that they were. That's also not what I meant or intended.

"You're talking about your view of family and making it look like it would or should universally describe family." Should it not?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

No it should not, because you fundamentally miss what family is when you set its definition using ideals based criteria instead of basing it on peoples' reality and experience.

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not What am I missing? And where are you getting the assumption about "non-married families", as you put it?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

It's not an assumption lol, you typed that definition:

"marriage is a solemn seal. It's ultimately in this framework that children are brought into the world and a family is made" and "So marriage is truly about the formation of children and the next generation"

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not Yes, that is in fact what I said. I think the worst thing that could be said about that is simply that I didn't add the word "formal", that marriage is a FORMAL solemn seal. So once again, what is the problem? What am I missing?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I give up lol, I don't know if you're acting in good or bad faith, but in both cases it's leading nowhere

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not Not at all. I read what you said earlier, but what I'm asking (or I guess the better question to ask) is what's wrong with approaching this from a perspective of ideal?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Okay, it's getting somewhere again then, ideals. When you subordinate family to marriage, that is an ideal yes, and this ideal denies contemporary standards about what family is. So it's an ostracizing ideal, that's my point

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not I don't think it's ostracizing at all, or at least not with malice. If ten families move out to the middle of nowhere and start a community together and they all have the traditional structure (married father and mother with kids) and then a single mom with two kids asks to join them, that single mom is likely to feel ostracized or out of place, but that doesn't mean the ten families in question are doing it on purpose with the intention of making her feel so. They just have their established patterns and rhythms.

And with that established, that comes back to the question I just asked. What problem is there (if there is in fact one) with pursuing or encouraging an ideal? And as a follow-up, is there something to be lauded about these contemporary standards you're talking about (also, can you please explain what that means)?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

This settlers short story with the ten families reproduces how conformity historically works, with this in/ex duet, its mechanics, including what looks similar to us and excluding what doesn't look like us. That's history how it happened, but contemporary standards, speaking of them, feature a different script. A script where we improved the range of what conformity now includes. It's not longer illegal or morally questionable to build a family outside the scope of marriage, these families, by contemporary standards, are recognized as families as much as those built within the scope of marriage.

Which expands what's encompassed into the term 'family', whereas what you suggested was to go back in time and set criteria from there, from an ancient place in time, effectively cancelling the contemporary range it took us so long to reach. It has to be disheartening, it has to make me thing you're going backwards

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not It may not be illegal or, by contemporary standards, morally questionable, but if on the one hand a man and a woman have a legally binding contract by an outside competent authority as being married and another man and woman simply live together without that recognition but still have all the material appearances of being "married", are they truly the same thing? This basically comes down to the philosophical definitions of "matter" and "form".

And please forgive me if this is a confrontational response, but with your second point, is the argument then in essence "that was then, this is now. Get with the program"?

Which ultimately comes back to my previous question (sort of): What is the problem with pursuing the former way of life and why should the current way of life itself be pursued? What is lacking in the one and what is to be praised in the other?

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

All of this has to be about philosophy however we put it, you cope from a philosophy to believe in what you believe and I come from another.

Philosophically, to me, there is no difference between a family built around marriage and the one built without marriage, because the people are the same, they are humans, they hopefully love each other, they hopefully care for their kids, in a world relentlessly throwing struggles and complications at them.

Getting with the program, no, that wouldn't be an argument, that would have no substance. The substance I praise from contemporary standards is how it values people's experiences and lives over rules. How it includes people based on what they live instead of excluding them based on rules prescribed a long time ago. Working with and for people more than with and for written rules, those are morals I believe in, ones I find just.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I assume your philosophical foundations are to follow God's words because it is just for you to do so. Whereas there isn't any God on my philosophical path, there are people, and I have faith in them, that is just to me.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

And, like you maybe, my faith isn't set in stone, sometimes I'm in doubt, because it isn't easy to have faith in humanity

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not I make a rather pointed and conscious effort not to invoke God, the Bible, Church teaching or tradition, or anything else like that (at least at first) in order to demonstrate that it's not merely from the perspective of religion that one can hold the positions that they do.

Also worth noting is that theology and philosophy are two different disciplines.

If I am to be honest (and I say this as charitably as possible), it does seem as though that is the argument you're making. And I should clarify that I have absolutely no problem being called a "backwardsist (as Pope Francis so condescendingly referred to traditionalist Catholics)", a "regressive", "retrograde" or anything else like that. Because yes, I do want that more "idealistic" way of life. Ideals can guide, draw out, and be a cause for one to reflect on and evaluate themselves, the direction they're going, and the steps they're taking in order to live a fulfilling life and build a healthy and cohesive society.

I say that as someone who looks at the world we live in today and at the way I was raised. My parents have had their issues, as both individuals and as a couple, but they have nonetheless been married for well over 40 years now. Having come from that, I look around and don't see much in the world today that I want to emulate. If you start "expanding" definitions of things, especially things as fundamental as family, then the thing itself can lose its meaning. And I really think that's what we're seeing today.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Not merely from the perspective of religion, well, I salute the effort but do you think it's really possible to achieve that? I mean Catholicism, more so when following it the traditional way, looks like an all encompassing notion to me, affecting every concept formed to look at the world, because God is a total answer to absolutely anything in the world. At least this is how I picture traditionalist views.

I'm full of ideals myself, as well, I mean faith in humanity is an ideal, because in truth I have no idea of my destination with it all. But it gives me a path to walk on, a path I think and feel is right, destination will wait.

Theology, philosophy, I see what you're saying, because there's philosophy and Philosophy and p h i l o s o p h y. To me though, there isn't any theology that isn't philosophy as well, because philosophy invented theology, and because both theology and philosophy wonder about the essence of the world.

[BCRanger10]

@Maybe_Maybe_not I think so, because that's exactly what I did in my original post. I will say that I think the argument can lack a sense of completion or finality, but I think what I laid out still provides a good case from natural law, which offers a window into divine and eternal law. So with that being said, it would probably be better for me to say I make a point to DELAY said appeals, rather than avoid. I forget the exact order of the hierarchy of law, but I do remember that there is natural law and human law, and then divine and eternal. The lower provides windows and insights into the higher and the higher brings the lower to completion, similar to how Saint Augustine described the Old and New Testaments in the Bible: The New is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed and fulfilled in the New.

[bobalife]

Nope, but some people like to think they can make authorize decisions for people to allow or not allow love. Love is love. People can deny that they’re not homophobic and they are ally for LGBTQ, but if you actually love and care about LGBTQ+ people in your life… or in general… you wouldn’t take it so personal and saying the LGBTQ+ community is influencing school system, age groups, manipulating, or any negative terms. It’s coming from a place of not wanting to understand, LACK of education about these topics, not liking change that don’t fit society’s standard, not allowing people to just be who they are and let them love, not allowing kids to be okay with who they are born as (obviously why people stay in the closet and remain fearful/shameful/depress), projection from internal struggles, hating someone who is simply not heterosexual when a person’s sexual orientation does nothing difference to who they are as an individual, raised to the traditional mindset and hate what’s different to them, and so on.
It’s funny to me some people spend so much time and energy on hating… than just accepting and loving people.
It’s also even more funny to me when homophobic are in denial of acting on their homophobic behaviors, emotions, & thoughts.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

No of course not, but it's sad there are too many phobic people in this world (and some even in this question) who post the stupidest lies about lgbt because their conservative media tells them to say it. They are basically sheep. Hateful sheep, but sheep nonetheless.

[HawkPerception]

I don't care if they get married. But they should not be allowed to have kids. A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot have kids. They'd need someone else's eggs or sperm. And it's strange to be raised by 2 of the same sex parents.

And what I hate is the mentally ill people trying to push their agenda on schools and public spaces, trying to indoctrinate kids with their nonsense at early ages against parents wills. There is no reason for kids to learn about that kind of trash, especially at early ages.

The LGBT community is ruining society in a lot of ways. And let me get this straight. I'm not a homophobe in the slightest. I have a gay aunt who's the sweetest lady. I know a dude who's gay who's also extremely nice. But you know the difference between them and the flamers? They're not up in your face about it. They're not trying to push it on kids in schools. They're not trying to encourage kids to mutilate themselves at early ages and not listen to their parents. They are not groomers.

Conservative gay people are the best.

[rtj1211]

The real question is not individual issues but how far gay and trans people are prepared to push to try and turn the heterosexual majority into a society with rules designed by and for gays/trans people. Both are small minorities of the total population and therefore societal rules should broadly be drawn up to benefit the majority, whilst protecting the dignity and rights of the minorities.

Some gays and some trans people exhibit really extreme views, which are not reflective of the majority of those groups. Unfortunately, they are often the ones most active in trying to impose their views on everyone else.

Of course, some heterosexuals are equally extreme in different ways, which is why you get these conflicts occurring.

Getting opposing extremists to compromise is one of the most challenging tasks facing societal leaders. Sometimes, even with the most skilled people on the planet, such compromises may not be possible to form.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

🔷"Why are so many so concerned with what doesn’t impact them in any possible way?"

Probably, because some people:

• have too much free time
• want a firm grip on society
• feel insulted because somebody is living differently
• follow whatever religious belief that opposes whatever notion
• follow whatever political philosophy that opposes whatever notion
• troll to spice up a boring day at work
• genuinely hate people
• repeat what someone else said
• want to say something edgy because it's cool
• wave the flag to make friends on ideological basis
• type text when they are drunk, high, sleep deprived, deranged or even a combination of all that
• type random letters that miraculously form an ostracizing statement
• are random

[Jersey2]

Marriage is a religious rite now embodied in centuries of law. In the 1990s gays wanted martial rights and were given Civil Unions and Partnerships but it needed to be written into laws and company benefits plans. Marriage was already a defined term legally in these benefit plans and laws. So gay lawyers decided to use the defined term “marriage” as a short cut.

It is a religious rite that they bastardized for time savings. Religions do not accept gay marriages but they didn’t care as it was about quick access to benefits. So fuck them.

[megan20022]

You don’t really think that marriage is just a religious thing in the modern age right?😂

[megan20022]

“You are out of your league”

[megan20022]

I just think it’s weird u give a shit about who marries who

[Jersey2]

You have no idea. Goodbye

[megan20022]

I see u have no response for how this affects you or why you should care

[Jersey2]

There is no real talking to you. You are dim, that is clear, and a waste of time. Go back to your echo chamber.

[megan20022]

Either stop replying or answer my response😭

[Wodens_Apprentice]

Why should we force churches to adopt marriage? They care because their religions are fundamentally against being gay and have been for the past roughly 1,900 years. A religion is meant to transcend time. If you dislike the religion why not just promote making non-religious marriages more of an official custom?

[FunkyMonkee]

I don't see any reason for it. The only type of "trans" there should be a problem with are those that simply IDENTIFY as trans!! If I identify as a pick-up truck, that doesn't mean I AM a pick-up truck!! Likewise, that doesn't mean you are what you claim you are, especially if you do nothing to even TRY to convince anyone else!
No problem at all with you BEING trans, as long as you at least TRY to BE trans and have already started on mones to transition and you aren't using it as an excuse to get your jollies!!

[genericname85]

yeah. marriage is an institution meant to support "families". not random people. you know cause families supply the nation with it's probably most valuable good: offspring. trans or gay couples don't do that, so why should they get the tax cuts meant to support offspring bearing families?

[megan20022]

Still don’t see why not lol. And who said trans people don’t have kids

[genericname85]

the statistics and biology of it says that trans people don't have kids. i explained why. it's the same reason disabled people get certain benefits to make their life easier. normal people would also be happy to get these benefits but still we don't grant normal people that benefit. so for the same reason that normal people don't get disabled benefits i think trans people shouldn't get marriage benefits. cause they are not the group of people the marriage benefits were made for.

[DonaldDarko]

Homosexuality is not sexuality something went wrong. Trans people get hated because they're attacking the public trying to force people to go along woth their delusion. People are fighting back and now the so called trans are shooting people. All over something that's just made up.

[Danzigdawson]

In other words: "it hurts MY feelings and it challenges MY narrow perception of how things works: which is something that I will never allow to change, no matter what is said or many signs that I might be wrong attack my rigid, depressing, tiny world of conservative dogmas".

A deluge of valid reasons right here. 😄🖕

[DonaldDarko]

@Danzigdawson The problem you're having is that you're painting mental disease as something valid. By the way, what is a woman?

[Danzigdawson]

@DonaldDarko The only thing that even comes close to a "mental disease", as far as what's being discussed here is concerned, is your own cognitive inflexibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigidity_(psychology)

[AgentG111]

Look if they want to be miserable like all the rest of the married couples fine. Just don't press your agenda on me and don't ask for special treatment.

If people are so mental midgets that they believe they are someone else they need help.

[msc545]

Nobody cares what you do or what you think.

[AgentG111]

@msc545 nor you.

[Screenwriter]

Some folk tie these issues to religion or religious values and they're very serious about holding to their tenets. It's similar to the abortion issue. For them, there's no debating what's right.

[ChicoFromThe305]

I like to believe my reasons are valid, I don't know what you mean by oppose, I just don't support it, what people do with their free will is up to them, and with my free will and ability to express my thoughts, I have my opinions

[loveslongnails]

Take a closer look at those people who hate LGBTQ folks or same sex marriages. You find several glaring common denominators. Are fear and ignorance valid reasons? I think not.

[Anonymous]

I hate it when trans people call other people transphobic or bigot when they don’t consider transwomen to be women. Transwomen are male and I just find it hard to perceive somebody born male as a woman

[Opinion Owner]

I don’t hate trans people I just hate the way a lot of them tend to behave.

[Dargil]

There is no reason to reject domestic partnerships or "hate" people who don't infringe on your rights or money. There are private religious arguments unsupported by the mainstream.

[OneViewpoint]

Not really. Other people having equal rights in no way impairs my rights.

[NathanDavis]

"valid" is subjective

some... just want to hate, though

[oldman26]

Good points, too many people think they have to impose

[QuietRunner]

No, but their is also no valid reason why people must be forced to accept that gay marriage and trans people are normal things.

The better thing to do is just thing the other person is weird and go on peacefully with your day.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Because God said, "thou shalt not."

[jahaims]

It's a unhealthy trauma response. Mental illness shouldn't be promoted as okay.

[megan20022]

Ooffff

[Still-alive]

Nope. if anyone opposes it they are homophobic. just face the music.

[RavVid]

It is highly legitimate to hate trans people for trying to force their pronouns upon you. They do impact on me.

[goaded]

Would you call someone Robert who'd asked to be called Bobby? Same thing, you're just disrespecting the person you're talking to.

[RavVid]

@goaded It more happens the other way round - people translate Robert when you have said Robert to Bob. Quite frequent and not worth commenting on.

Pronouns are he or she and it is disrespecting my language - English... and therefore me - to invent pronouns when you are not entitled to. You speak pidgin as you like but I will speak English.

[goaded]

Pronouns are also y'all, they, them. Fine, you call Robert "Bob", then they ask you to call them Robert, what do you do?

[RavVid]

@goaded It is more my first name being contracted and I let that ball go through to the keeper without comment.

Australia uses English English so y'all doesn't exist and they them is an indefinite plural so it is just incorrect English to use that wrt a single human. 'We' has has a plural sense but can only be used that way by the reigning Monarch of Australia; commoners can't. It is called the Royal 'we' and is border line regicide for me to refer to myself as 'we'.

[goaded]

So you don't care about being misnamed, but try to imagine for a moment that you are willing to answer a simple question. If someone does care about what people call them, do you call them something else, even when you know it upsets them?

[RavVid]

@goaded @goaded The person is being very precious and the usual reaction most people have to people being precious is to reject it.

People bending English and attempting to change meanings of words is objectionable and they can't expect me to use bent English.

[megan20022]

What a pathetic excuse to justify being a dick

[RavVid]

I'm a dick with flat earthers too. Are you a flat earther?

[noohair]

Gays should have the right to marry and be as miserable as straights. Trans should get the mental health treatment they need.

[Bklynbadboy12]

Nope people should be able to live there life however the want as long as they're not hurting anyone

[strateguy632]

as if we are allowed to say?

[Mike_Hum]

lol, this is so silly.

[megan20022]

Yeah?

[Mike_Hum]

Yes. You children call everything you disagree with “hate”

[megan20022]

I do hate pedo rapists so I guess your right

[Mike_Hum]

Lol, do you now?

[Jen_oic]

I think it’s illegal

[msc545]

Nothing that I can figure out.

[Robbam55]

Who cares?

[megan20022]

Millions and millions of people

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[megan20022]

Well go on Mr anonymous

[Wodens_Apprentice]

They don't produce offspring. They're delusional & think they're something they're objectively not and can't prove it, they're more likely to suffer severe mental illness, many school shootings lately have been carried out by this crowd, they're vain & fickle, they're much more likely to commit paedophilic acts, they're social minded because they're feminised men which means they like gossip.
But worst of all they're also annoying & gross.

[megan20022]

The school shooting is a straight up lie. Why do they have to produce offspring?

[Wodens_Apprentice]

Because if you don't produce offspring you don't leave behind a legacy. Your ancestors go all the way back, poasibly millions of years. Hundreds of thousands of years of a bloodline has created you. Yet if you have no children that line ends with you.
In pagan cosmology if you don't have children, it's harder to reincarnate back onto Earth after going to hell. This is because your bloodline helps reproduce an equivalent of you.
Also having children is what leads people to personally develop, learn to become masculine, take responsibility & have a greater purpose in life than themselves.

[Wodens_Apprentice]

*possibly

[megan20022]

Who the hell cares about legacy and ur bloodline? What is this game of thrones?

[megan20022]

Do you have any kids?

[Wodens_Apprentice]

I do because I live for more then personal happiness. The universe is full of suffering & we have to learn to appreciate hardship if we're to provide a good future like our ancestors provided for us. It's the same reason a mason works on a Cathedral he will never live to see fully constructed.
Having a purpose would make me happier in the end then all the drugs, sex & parties you could throw at me.

[megan20022]

If that’s ur purpose good for u ig. But not everyone has to be the same as u lol

[Wodens_Apprentice]

No but I do feel like we humans are biologically consistent in what makes us happy. People who don't have children are often sad and lonely when they get older, but it becomes too late.
Being a parent sounds hard and stressful but when I ask my mum she'd definitely say it is worth it. Were your parents like that?

[Wodens_Apprentice]

No I got no kids, I'm single.

[megan20022]

Yes but that’s not really the point. Everyone has their own goals and perspectives in life and seem to not really care about anyone who doesn’t share your own.

[Wodens_Apprentice]

Nah I'd rather find a wife & get away from our declining society.

[megan20022]

Okay so do that… that’s totally fine. I’m just saying not everyone has to do that, and that’s not the best thing for everyone

[Wodens_Apprentice]

Well if I had a form of government people wouldn't have a choice, because it'd be a highly competitive unprotected one that rewards the tradition values that our ancestors needed to survive.
When I say tradition I'm not talking 1960's US culture. My traditions are timeless & connected to instinct. I read mythology, fairy tails & all that as that's where traditions are preserved best.
Also I think a lot of women like the idea of being in the role of a Princess saved by her Prince. It's traditional & romantic.

[megan20022]

I hope you realize that is an absolutely insane thing to say lol. Just promoting an authoritarian society?

[Wodens_Apprentice]

@megan20022 I was born in the wrong era though 😹

[abc3643]

@Wodens_Apprentice
"They don't produce offspring. "

This is idiocy.
I married my wife BECAUSE she couldn't have kids.
So, we don't have kids and been married for 25 years. Should my "traditional marriage" be void because we can't have kids?

[Wodens_Apprentice]

@abc3643 If you like Spock you're probably too autistic to understand. And as an autist I know how to use that terminology.
"Should my "traditional marriage" be void because we can't have kids?" I somewhat doubt someone who breaks everything down into simple mathematics would have desired a traditional marriage to begin with, especially as you married her because she can't have children. I mean your only rationale for that is so you can have sex with her as much as you want without "consequences" yet the only reason evolution gave you a sex drive is so you can produce children.
It's my philosophy that wins out the game of natural selection over yours.
Ofc people who can't have children still deserve a place in society. Even if you can't have children you can still take care of the other members of your lineage (siblings, cousins, local area, etc).

[Wodens_Apprentice]

@megan20022 Thanks for not getting heated like some would've by now. I believe that my opinion is the correct balance of power. For instance, using propaganda to promote traditional values to the normies without explicitly forcing them to have children. But I also think the government should have less of a directly role in the economy & perhaps actually more of a manipulative "Wizard"-like role instead of a disastrous command economy that totalitarian governments have. I like authoritarianism but I do not like totalitarianism.
I could make my people rich if I were in charge, but you would heavily disagree with the morality as to why. 🛶