Getting a moral relativist to tie himself into a pretzel takes all the skill of shooting a great big fish stuffed into a tiny little barrel. If there is no transcendent moral standard then it isn’t morally wrong to believe there is a transcendent moral standard. If everyone is morally free to do whatever he wants then it is not wrong to disregard someone’s preferred pronouns, not wrong to mock those who advertise their preferred pronouns, not wrong to kill those who have preferred pronouns. “No one ought to judge anyone else” is, with no sense of self-awareness, a judgment on those who judge.
Of course moral relativists, like marriages with two boys or two girls don’t actually exist. Subject their statement, “You can’t impose your standard of right and wrong on others” to truth serum and it comes out, “You can’t, but I can, impose your standard of right and wrong on others.” Consider abortion. We have been told for decades now that a woman has a “right to reproductive freedom.” Let’s break that down. First, reproductive freedom. No one that I’ve ever heard have has sought to take away a person’s liberty to reproduce. What they really mean is a woman has a right to kill her unborn child.
Now let’s look at “right.” Where does this purported right come from? If there is no transcendent moral standard then there are no rights. If there is a not transcendent moral standard, say for instance, a Supreme Court decision as a moral standard, then it can change. “A woman has a right to kill her unborn child” may be true if we mean by right “is not subject to prosecution under Roe v. Wade.” If Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court, is the source of this “right,” however, it can be overturned. No Roe. V. Wade, no “right” to kill your baby.
This is how those who support the murder of the unborn reason. Roe v. Wade gave me the right. Therefore you cannot take away the right. What though if before Roe those opposed to the murder of the unborn said, “This court has not granted the ‘right’ to murder the unborn. Therefore the right doesn’t exist.’” Anyone whose god is the federal government, whatever branch or combination of branches must say of their god, “That feds giveth. The feds taketh away. Blessed be the name of the feds.”
Reason, however, has never been the strong suit of the pro-abortionists. The heart has bloodlusts that reason knows not of. That bloodlust, we can expect, will spill beyond the unborn as first Roe is overturned and then states forbid the practice. I am no prophet but I expect that what is coming will make the Summer of Unrest a few years ago look like a Sunday School picnic. People who will not be constrained from slicing up babies will not be constrained by the niceties of public discussion and debate. They will seek to burn it all down.