I didn't say that.
put it this way, without context one cannot determine an absolute.
Even absolute morality has "exceptions" in the form of if/then/else sort of situations.
Also, the "survival of the fittest" argument doesn't work because that is a cross-species situation, moreover, altruism often benefits the species as much or more than competition within the species. Just look at humans, war is usually a waste of resources. Unfortunately, even war can produce a net good, in the case of ousting an evil dictator who oppresses his own people (which was a near miss in my thinking and caused me to rewrite what I was saying.)
It also seems unlikely for higher intelligence to exist without "animals," as there's no evidence of any plants having such attributes, and a mobile plant would require tremendous amounts of energy, therefore "animals" who eat plants and other animals are probably necessary for mobile, higher intelligence to exist, because you need mitochondria to power muscle groups, including the heart, even if you could somehow get a brain without an animal body.
The brain runs on Oxygen. Running a brain on CO2 might be possible, theoretically, but it would seem to be limited to the solar energy available to the plant or plant-like animal, which is limited to daylight and surface area. Therefore, a "plant-like animal," or rather, an "animal-like plant," like in science fiction, is probably impossible, since photosynthesis probably could not keep the brain alive at night time.
THEREFORE in order for intelligence to exist it must be at LEAST an animal herbivore.
Therefore the destruction of some organisms by others for food is a necessity for intelligent, mobile life to exist and to be maintained.
You could have an intelligent plant species, I suppose, but they'd need to be able to grow very, very huge surface area and live a very long time, since their experiences would be limited to their location of birth, they would not grow in knowledge or experience much at all, even over very long times, which prevents any "selection" based on such intelligence anyway, because it's questionable in what way an intelligent plant would apply that intelligence to benefit it's own survival, unless it had limbs or acid glands or some crap it could consciously use to defend itself intelligently, through foresight, as opposed to simple stimuli.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
If I was a Syrian opposition member right now, I'd wish somebody in the outside world would give a damn and help me.
I hate to say this, but I've been around gay guys on a few occasions before, and it completely creeps me out. It is not "homophobia" it is a complete natural revulsion, that works almost like some sixth sense or something.
I'm not "afraid" of a gay guy. I am utterly disgusted by it at some primal level of conscience. It offends me.
It's worse than the 400lbs obese woman who thinks she's attractive, when in reality she's absolutely repulsive and delusional.
I'm at 210 to 215lbs right now, depending on clothing and fluid levels, and when I look in the mirror I hate the way my fat belly exists and wish I could lose 25 to 30 lbs of fat and fluid ASAP, because it's bad thing..
...it's like that.
When a person is ill, telling them the truth is what they need, just as when I was ill my doctor gave me a piece of his mind about my blood pressure and cholesterol.
As it happens, my having said this offends you.
So we both offend one another, and this is a case where "do unto others..." fails by itself, and needs further qualification, because I would "have" someone tell me the truth about their position, even if it offended me.
If gays were instead straight, neither of us would be offended, and the natural productive order of humanity would be preserved.
If straights were instead gay, maybe nobody is offended, but the natural productive order would not exist, and humanity would die out. Now you tried to counter that by pointing out bisexuality and stuff, but the point is still true.
If Gays were instead truly straight equals nobody offended and no problems.
The same cannot be said for the reverse scenario.
Therefore, a combination of naturalism and the "golden rule" still shows heterosexuality to be strictly superior to homosexuality.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder, just like psychosis and psychopathy, but the political correctness movement gradually broke down that standard.
If I was ill, I'd want someone to cure me, and since homosexuality was always considered a sin and / or illness for countless generations, you should see the point.
It's kind of like commercial ads on television. You can tell any lie you want to about your product in order to sell it in the modern world, just as long as it isn't true! If your claim is not true, the FDA won't bother you. If your claim is true and the product works, you will eventually get sued over it's side effects.
Raspberry Keytone does not cause weight loss in humans, yet it's perfectly legal for companies to make a product of Raspberry keytone and market it as a weight loss product with that being the alleged active ingredient, even though it is absolutely known to be a complete lie.
"Seven in ten doctors prescribe product X over product Y," and their competitor says the opposite is true!
Moral of the story is lying to yourself or others about your "product" or your condition also doesn't meet the Golden Rule.
So again, if all the gays were instead truly straight, there would be no offense, and the Golden Rule would be maintained by everyone.
Since you can't possibly love yourself loving others is out of the question.