Who's talking about punishing anyone?
In my view, you are. We are born into our obligation to society; we did not opt in, and we are given no real opportunity to opt out. We can only expect to receive its essential protections in return for exceptional obedience to its strictures. Where we clearly disagree is in the matter of what constitutes an "essential protection." I'm certainly not convinced that the foreign and domestic enemies from which we are protected via military (ostensibly, though the military has, for decades now, been used primarily to protect economic interests and ill-defined and, in some cases, ill-conceived political allegiances) are any closer in spirit to the natural predators and climatic pressures from which we first began to protect ourselves by forming tribes (probably long before homo sapiens
as we know them actually existed) than are equally "reptilian" concerns like whether one is at risk from the next epidemic, the barriers between the hungry and the food that might feed them (whether a matter of agricultural failures, market fluctuations altering the costs of food, or the indigence of the hungry party), or participation in the familial contracts we offer to certain households.
All I ask is that consequences of behavior, economic or otherwise, be borne by the person choosing the behavior.
But as has been pointed out, you are sheltered from the "consequences" of your behavior in all sorts of ways, most notably via the benefits of the marital contract. How have you "earned" that? What is the empirical, objective benefit to any of the rest of us of your breeding?
All law expresses some idea of morality.
No. It all expresses some idea of utility
. This dovetails with morality, of course, since according to what information we can glean on how morality evolved, it, too, had its basis in utility. As I've said before, to no cogent attempt at refutation on your part, there is no freedom of religion without freedom of moral self-determination.
Most is non controversial, like prohibiting murder or child abuse, or requiring drivers to obey reasonable safety regulations.
All utilitarian concerns. It's almost
like you get it.
I don't know your states health care insurance laws, so won't comment on them.
I live in Seattle, so I'm under the same laws you are.
As to marriage, that's a can of worms we'll never agree on.
The difference is I have offered a coherent argument; you offer only vitriol and platitude.
But the welfare of children should always trump the selfish desire of a tiny self selected minority to redefine a fundamental social institution, at least in my mind.
And again--in what way does marriage between the elderly, the medically infertile, or those who choose not to have children aid the welfare of children that marriage between members of the same sex does not? In way is the welfare of children harmed, or left wanting, by same-sex marriage that would not also apply to any other childless marriages? And while responsible rearing of children once they exist
obviously promotes an empirically demonstrable social benefit, what social benefit can you demonstrate empirically for the encouragement of having children in the first place?