I still disagree there. In the wilderness, among wildlife, homosexuality is not only surprisingly common for many species, but the gay members of those species often serve supportive roles that help the entire herd even if they don't indulge the oh so mandatory biological imperative to pass on their own specific genes.
Even if there was some great cosmic force bellowing "THE ONLY PURPOSE IN LIFE IS REPRODUCTION," those that reproduce and those that don't still live and die the same way, same origins and same endings, whether or not that great cosmic force was heeded and obeyed. Because there's no clear and obvious scorekeeper (pun intended) to decree which mortal creatures fulfilled their supposed only purpose, I say again that is is not the same thing as ought, even at a technical level.
I mean I guess technically it's not wrong.
Is/ought fallacy, and it also devalues the existence of people that either can't or choose not to reproduce.
Yeah I wasn't saying it's something a person should live by just that it's technically correct
I still disagree there. In the wilderness, among wildlife, homosexuality is not only surprisingly common for many species, but the gay members of those species often serve supportive roles that help the entire herd even if they don't indulge the oh so mandatory biological imperative to pass on their own specific genes.
Even if there was some great cosmic force bellowing "THE ONLY PURPOSE IN LIFE IS REPRODUCTION," those that reproduce and those that don't still live and die the same way, same origins and same endings, whether or not that great cosmic force was heeded and obeyed. Because there's no clear and obvious scorekeeper (pun intended) to decree which mortal creatures fulfilled their supposed only purpose, I say again that is is not the same thing as ought, even at a technical level.