Not quite accurate. Merely because different people have differing opinions on something does not logically imply the thing isn’t objective. There are, for example, differing opinions on good art or good music and that, in itself, does not mean the qualities that make art or music good cannot be objectively determined.
People, even experts, can disagree about certain things but that merely implies the objective qualities are not easily determined. It doesn’t automatically make those determinations subjective.
Nope. This same argument can be made with regards to things like rape, torture, murder, theft or dishonesty. The mere fact that some individuals can be found to have a different view does not mean we are free to define it any way we wish.
There are specific characteristics of marriage that are “objective” and not even disputable. The capacity to create, nurture and form new human beings is integral to the conjugal view of marriage. Merely that some will disregard those very objective characteristics does not mean they aren’t objective and clearly an aspect of marriage all through history.
It is much bigger than that. In fact, it has morphed into denying gender has any objective meaning whatsoever – that individuals have a right to determine their own gender despite the fact that gender differences are genetically, physiologically and biologically undeniable.
We may as well abdicate any sense of reality and let reality (and objectivity) become entirely a matter of subjective determination.
The whole enterprise went off the rails a while ago. We need to forensically backtrack to the point where the “common” understanding went astray and shore up the rational case for objectivity before we proceed any further.
I would insist that any claim that begins with if something isn’t seen the same way by everyone then it isn’t objective has proven itself to be unfit to make determinations regarding objectivity from the get go.