That's the thing: who's gonna judge your morals and allow or forbid you to run? Other people's morals? That's not equal rights under the Constitution.
The broader issue isn't even about morals, it's about trying to push forbiddings against individuals as an amendment in the Constitution. That's asinine, as the amendments are meant to make the government recognize the citizen's rights and forbid it from treading on them. At worst, restricting and punishing people, that's the job of the law, and even there, punishing someone for lawful behavior is also asinine. And making consensual sexual acts punishable offenses sounds all kind of wrong to me as well as ripe for abuse.
On this one, you won't make me budge: barring Kamala Harris by law or Constitutional amendment to run for office for whoring herself out isn't something you want as a citizen. (Other reasons making it so she can't run are different matters altogether and outside the scope of this specific comment thread.)
Certainly not. If morals were part of the constitution, then Trump would have been impeached or simply barred from running based on the Hollywood access tape alone, only for knowingly making advances on a married woman. No one is perfect.
Be careful in what you wish for, as to make sure it can't be used against you in a way that you didn't intend.
And that's before talking about the vagueness of being recognized "guilty" of morally dubious but lawful behavior... Who's gonna give the verdict? The court of public opinion? That's already the case, and the media is a terrible lawyer for you. A constitutional amendment that somehow restricts access to office for morally dubious but lawful behavior is a massive can of worms.
And another wall of text right back at you :D
I am not familiar with Camille Paglia but I am familiar with Christina Hoff Summers (and I agree with her with a lot of what she says), I see your points about individual liberty and the consistency with biology regarding the trans movement: it just baffles me that radical feminists and trans activists can ally when one side says a gender out of two is oppressed and the other says gender is a social construct and anything not "cisgendered" is oppressed. Maybe it just comes down to the genders and oppression themes... TBF I'd love to do away with the very concept of gender as it relates to humans entirely (FU John Money.)
I didn't hear that one from Peterson about Freedom, but I agree with him. I can see the effect in humans who put themselves in "cages", mental barriers that are deemed comfortable despite the abuse, because that's "charted territory", they know what to expect and that's reassuring: broke up with an abusive companion? Finds another abusive one. Gave your resignation in? Find another job with the same or even worse work conditions. So on and so forth.
Now about feminism itself: I agree 100% that women should not be punished for their biology. That's an asinine concept. However as it relates to abortion, I can't support it with good conscience when seeing how it is used today. Don't take it that I'm an absolutist pro-life, I support choices that have consequences and therefore require personal responsibilities: abstinence, contraception, adoption, raising the kid, as well as abortion in cases when the life of the mother is at risk. This is consistent with the right to self-preservation recognized through the 2A: an imminent threat to your life should be stopped. Now here's another take that echoes your point: babies should not be punished for being conceived. And that goes for babies born out of rape in my opinion. I know this may sound horrible, but what did the baby ask for? As it turns out, I learned there are associations of adults born out of rape, and they are perfectly normal individuals! And regarding adoption, I'd love to see the adoption system overhauled. I can't for the life of me understand why it's easier to adopt abroad rather than locally. There are so many couples who are waiting for a kid to adopt, yet so many are butchered at Planned Parenthood for no reason but "I don't want it", which is perfectly acceptable for giving it up for adoption.
I agree there should be safety nets, but those safety nets shouldn't be tear-proof. What I mean is, a financial safety net granted by the government shouldn't allow you to live beyond the minimum decency, and to live forever on it. If you want anything beyond that, work for it, the safety net should break at some point and it's your job is to get off of it before it does. The problem is, such hardened safety net is ripe for abuse from both individuals against the government (getting more money for false claims), and individuals against their own children (getting more money but not investing it in the children, I have seen families of double-digit number of children in barely-better-than-rags while at least one of the parents rolls in a sports car.) As it stands, the French government cannot estimate how much welfare fraud costs to the taxpayer. I heard a story of a couple who got busted for declaring more than a thousand children to various welfare offices. Regarding single-motherhood, we have stories of mothers who were declared single, yet there is a husband... and he's the husband of many, who then racks up a part of the cash from all the mothers he's popping babies with. It's insane how welfare systems can be gamed despite the best of intentions from the lawmakers. So while I understand the predicament your mother was in, and I have been a recipient of government aid at some point myself, I also understand the need to cut off people who don't get out of the safety net. Because those people, if they are allowed to stay in a safety net that gets more comfy as time goes on, will pile up, and the safety net breaking at that point would mean breaking the economy. It's a balancing act.
As for attractiveness, this indeed goes both ways. I think a higher level of responsibility and income should reflect positively on the body (I don't think a low income should be an excuse to neglect your body entirely however). A fatass businessman? I won't have a good opinion of that person right off the bat, no matter the gender. Elon Musk? Lisa Su? Heh, I have a fairly favorable opinion of them despite never having talked with them (and probably never will). That's from both attractiveness and achievements.
Hardline "roles of the sexes" traditionalism failed when soldiers were sent in Europe and women were called to the workforce. Feminism failed when it outright doubled the amount of "work hours" available (a resource that follows the law of offer and demand), thereby making the income of individuals take a nosedive, chaining women to work. I don't know where the solution lies. It seems like we are going in a direction of needing more work for the same income, giving more handouts for no reason and chaining people to those handouts, pushing them to vote for more handouts, all leading to government control of the masses, throughout Western civilization. The demise of the family unit is part of this endeavor IMHO, but I don't have definite proof, only circumstantial evidence.
AWS is Amazon's cloud computing and hosting service.
Amazon has other services, like online shopping and streaming on-demand and whatnot.