I can already foresee what will be the cause of this thread's death....
Since the topic lingers in the boggy mire of fascist asexuality, I have something to say, and anyone who challenges my right to say it should consult Socrates.
It intrigues me when people say, "Hey, I'm not perfect," to somehow liberate themselves from responsibility for their inevitable human folly. What would the "perfect person" even look like? Could any of us picture the perfect person and describe them? I don't think so. And even if we could, would we all universally have in mind the same person? No. Perhaps nesgirl would picture an asexual, perhaps Summerlander a scientist, perhaps myself a serial killer (joking, nesgirl), perhaps HAGART a comedian. Point is, we cannot know what a perfect organism would be like. There is nothing for us to strive towards, no sublime criterion for being holy. So what does it mean for us to defy our inherent nature? If the majority of humans lacked empathy, then that would be considered a "good" attribute, and empathy would be unnatural and sickly. But, granted, that is a poor example because, with that kind of useless evolutionary programming, we wouldn't have made it very far as a species. Empathy is objectively good because our species wouldn't last without it--and according to biocentric morality, our relative elasticity and resilience is what is good. We've come this far with romance by our side and it hasn't inhibited social progress--why ditch it now?[ Post made via iPhone ]