What's the left's motto 'It takes a village'? Have you noticed how the left is always favouring experimental familial forms?

Not surprising that many of them also advocate for lowering the age of consent or normalization of pedophilia.

I guess in Christianity you have a happy balance between the two where the ultimate transaction has already taken place and you don't have to keep appeasing God with blood.

Some polytheistic gods are like mercenaries that will prostitute their supernatural abilities if given the correct payment. The NT emphasizes proportionality of sacrifice (Mark 12:41-44) and moral restoration/transformation (Luke 15:31-32, Matthew 18:12-13), which suggests that (1) altruistic intent matters as much as or more than ability, and (2) the bad can become good. Maybe Irenaean theodicy is a cope but the concept does mirror biological evolution. Mitchell Heisman covered similar topics in his suicide note, haven't read all of it but some people might find it interesting if not insane: https://legacy.gscdn.nl/archives/images/suicide_note.pdf

A racialist would probably put that down to racial degeneration with the blood of the Indo-European conquerors eventually becoming too intermingled with the Dravidian stock of the Sub-Continent. I'm absolutely no expert on that but I did read a really interesting piece about how modern molecular genetics is pretty much confirming the old idea that the caste system at least originally was set up as a way to maintain the separation of the 'Aryans' from the locals.

I've seen a study suggesting that jâti-based endogamy solidifed during the times of the Gupta empire, maybe contemporaneous with the early stages of the Byzantine empire. The regular usage of "caste" in the English language does not allow for adequate distinction between jâti (tribe or micro-ethnicity) and varṇa (social classification not based on ancestry but vocation). Over time new communities of ambiguous affiliation can form (e.g. the Rajputs) while some jâtis are inextricable from their religious designation (e.g. the Saraswat Brahmins). There are hundreds of these.

A prevailing view in the archaeogenetics community is that modern Indians are a composite of ANI (Indo-Aryan Steppe migrants + IVC) and ASI (IVC + AASI) in varying proportions. The inhabitants of the Indus Valley civilization were technologically advanced for their era -- private latrines that were flushed, complex urban structures, utility systems -- and yet some of their remains indicate significant proportions of West Eurasian ancestry from Iran and smaller portions of DNA that seem to be related to Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers.

The Indian cultural complex is like a reverse Bermuda Triangle where you can find basically anything. It defies classification and is full of contradictions. Perhaps many of those odd behaviors originate from AASI-skewed populations? The AASI do seem to have some distant genetic affinity with the Andamanese, who also appear to have diverged from the same basal population as Oceanians (not Polynesians but Melanesians, Papuans, and Australians) and East Asians. I'm very curious about this group because I wonder how the current inhabitants of North Sentinel Island got there when they do not appear to have fully grasped firemaking in modern times. Possibly the Tasmanian effect if they descended from a larger population. Speaking of Australia, there does appear to have been some contact between Australians and Indians several millennia ago: https://theconversation.com/study-links-ancient-indian-visitors-to-australias-first-dingoes-11593

One thing the article doesn't mention is how retroflex consonants are an areal feature in India, but are also somehow rather prominent in Australian languages? Then again, it could be a coincidence since they do appear in some singular languages like Swedish.

That was longer than I intended, I don't pretend to be an expert but the chaotic complexity of India really fascinates me.