>>13044060>I think its a waste of time trying to define moralityMorality, by my definition, is the science of social orchestration which attempts to minimize detriment to society and maximize benefit.
>is there any reason to follow a god, then? It's all a matter of faith. From my view, a God gives you a set of precedents and a type of insight that helps you to think, make decisions, understand things, orchestrate your life, and generally have some ability to find pleasure in things beyond the physical world.
There is plenty of value in every religion, otherwise it would not be popular among people. People find psychological benefits to religion, and there are many objective benefits as well. Religion has always been what allows human civilizations to form, and the quality of that religion is what allows for societies to become powerful. This is why the Chinese and Greeks were powerful while the Canaanites, struggled, the Chinese and Greeks had better moral codes.
>homosexuality?I argue in favor of sexual segregation because random heterosexual reproduction is contrary to the basic science of animal husbandry, which mandates exclusively the use of deliberate selective breeding. Sexual segregation means that homosexuality is the only available sexuality.
This is because the source of all conflict within society stems from differences between two people. Each difference between two people can spur conflict, and in order to minimize conflict within society, one must minimize the palpable differences between people.
When people can't say "I'm the victim because I'm different", then the only way people can be judged is through their own merits. They don't have "I'm different" as an excuse anymore. This is an extensive and unpopular degree of segregation, but I argue it is the most practical way to minimize interpersonal conflict
All reproduction would be done by a breeding caste of women, Queens, akin to bees or ants. E.g. picture, and this one.
>>13031580 