🎯
Absolutely.
Fits directly with classical/Rawlsian liberalism - the state should only exist insofar as to preserve each imdividual’s rights to live as described above, up to and until the point where one’s doing so impedes another’s ability to live as they wish.
I agree with this, as far as civil/secular law goes, but I have additional religious freedom reasons for feeling indignant about anyone trying to socially pressure families too much, one way or the other.
It could end up undermining traditional marriage, rather than supporting it.
Fair enough. I think of the above as a general guideline - naturally a complex society will require various permutations of that ideal, if it’s going to provide its citizens with the freedom to truly freely live their lives.
