What 'norm' do you want enforced? That only heterosexual, married couples be allowed to procreate?
Monogamy is the historical exception, not the norm. The species isn't wired the way you think it is. Monogamy by way of restricting sex until marriage was the way to get men in particular to invest their time and money in building up their families rather than trying to earn mating opportunities in various socially unproductive ways (i.e. war).
And, again, how would you enforce it?
Well, religion is out. And we can't have laws that enforce it, so clearly there is to be no enforcement, and whatever benefits the institution afforded society at large will fall into the dust. Which, of course, you have no problem with, because your idea of moral progress isn't actually interested in the flourishing of humans as such.
Probably. How many people should be sacrificed and harmed for your ideological quest to be fulfilled?
Right back at ya.
Not sure what this obtuseness achieves, but neither does marriage.
Riiiiiiight.
Nah, the problem is you invent fantastical, all-encompassing conspiracy theories to justify your ideology. And then dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with it wholesale, including on unrelated matters.
The problem is that you don't want to admit the degree to which ideologically motivated people colour the truth because of their over-riding political commitments. And the reason you don't want to do that is because in fact you
share those over-riding political commitments.
The cherry on this particular cake is that I never actually invoked any sort of conspiracy theory in this matter. That's something
you did to smear my position so as to avoid what I actually
was describing, which broadly speaking is simply a particular flavour of ideology/mindset found in the wild, the kind of activist propaganda posing as education you find in grievance studies. The same rot that got James Damore fired from Google. The same rot that infected "Derrida-team" at Google such that they hacked the national narrative for political purposes. The point being that it doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be dangerous. And as a matter of fact the narrative of the ideology has taken control of the single most powerful information hub on the planet, namely Google (and most of the other social media companies, but put that aside for now), sans conspiracy.
But you'd let this crap run roughshod over everything without batting an eye, but yet you presume to opine on what moral progress looks like?
What you claim is an'ulterior motive' is what they openly advocate for. It's the opposite of an ulterior motive.
What they openly advocate for has precisely nothing to do with climate change given the absolute absurdity of the proposals intended to address climate change. Therefore the entire package was wrapped in a bunch of BS, therefore the stated purpose of the deal was never what the deal was actually about, and instead what you have is a cynical power grab, not particularly different in ethos from the way Stalin made sure the "workers" were in control of the Soviet Union. That you don't find this disturbing is telling.
So until people agree with your ideological crusade, no progress can be made on some of the most pressing issues of our times. Unfortunate.
There won't be any progress on the most pressing issues of our times while your ideology would selectively prioritise what is most pressing in such a way that it drives humanity straight into the ditch, and while you will not acknowledge the defect that makes it inevitably ruinous. Sorry, but ensuring that everybody is equally miserable because you're filled with resentment is not what progress looks like, moral or otherwise, little tarantula. And actually, that's exactly what the culture war boils down to; it's tarantulas versus everybody else.
www.dailywire.com
Sign up with Google