Point is, an objective fact is indisputable, whereas morality is anything but that. There's no 'true' morality, it being interpretative. You may choose to believe that water doesn't boil at a hundred degrees centigrade, but that doesn't change the fact. Morality is neither universal nor replicable, being an intangible concept. You're trying to posit morality as being empirical, but it never will be. It's not a question of convenience.
Either that or moving towards a revised morality. People still have expectations and values. You're only arguing for your personal preference. Not being you, how could anyone else be expected to see the world precisely as you do, much less everyone? Lacking the authority to impose morality on behalf of your entire country, you've no choice but to settle for the status quo. You're not permitted to behave as you will and you'd be stopped if you tried.
Revolt's the wrong word. Morality doesn't exist as a sentient entity, capable of compelling obedience. Even God grants us the free will to do as we please. There'll always be debate and resistance, but these aren't negatives. Only ongoing feedback ensures that ideology develops as a dynamic, adaptive and responsive process. Being a Conservative, you believe that stasis is a possibility. This is one of the ways in which Conservatism is fundamentally flawed. Traditions only pave the way for novelty and modernity.
Things change.