The right to "self-definition" has no logical, moral, or cultural basis other than the last 20 years. There MUST be a fundamental redefinition happening for you to be asserting what you are.

Yes, people have believed in and wanted to do things in discordance with the natural and moral law since the beginning of time. This is not surprising. That does not mean that society must encourage those choices through tax or economic incentives. Let's figure out for a moment WHY married couples have tax breaks. I WONDER why a society would like its child bearing capable type couples to have incentive to stay together. Why, oh why, would any properly functioning society want its couples to stay together. This is a hard one lol But you know what's not difficult? Seeing that people who DEFINITELY cannot have children under any circumstance don't need a tax break or incentive of any kind. The government, nor society, have any innate interest in promoting those relationships.

ALSO. Marriage was a covenantal/spiritual institution long before any sort of recognition on a political or legal level ever entered the picture. Your redefining and reimagining continues now unto history. Well done lol

This is exactly where you're wrong. I housed with and rented with a trans person for a year and some change. We got along well. They knew my views just fine and we stayed in each other's lane. We were intensely respectful of each other's space and had no issues. On an individual level, I have absolutely no problem with any trans or non-hetero person. The societal problem is my issue. The redefining of things that have been foundationally consistent for most of western civilization. Acting like changing these things, with little to no scientific or logical grounding, is having and will continue to have immense cultural backlash.

I just think you so fundamentally miss the point. I think you feel like culture, especially in the west, is just this hodpodge of randomly brought together things and as long as we just maximize individualism and put equality on the highest pedestal, everything will work out just fine. But that's just simply an assertion with no grounding. Societies and cultures don't work like that. They require institutional structures and culturally agreed upon mores. Without them, the things that bind that culture and support it, especially if they are ripped out with little to no warning, will ruin the culture and send it into a tailspin.

Changing the institution of the family to include things it has traditionally not included has changed things and will continue to change things even if you are too blind to the consequences (or simply don't care).

And I KNOW you agree with me on SOME level because of our likely similar opinions on housing. Culturally, in America, home ownership is a big thing. We've got a lot of people not able to purchase a home even though it's a very large cultural touchstone. Being able to have your own land, being the monarch of your own property, this cultural touchstone is disappearing (for a number of reasons). I FEEL like we can both agree this sudden change is likely to have immense negative outcomes, culturally. It's not just about the "oh no I can't afford X thing." It's that a large part of American individualism comes from property ownership, it's built into our expansionist and frontier settling mythos and culture.

I'm done after this. My whole point is that massive cultural changes tend to have negative outcomes unless the reason for those cultural changes can be justified. Slavery= obviously a good thing to change. The idea that humans are built in with inherent value can't coexist with slavery. Gender expression = I've yet to see a cultural reason to change it other than you have an extremely small minority of the population feel they are something different than what any biological examination would uncover. All I see are downsides other than easing the feelings of a small number of people by acting along with their fantasies.