Well, if moral norms are the Nash equilibria that result from actual historical bargaining situations

I would regard moral norms as useful heuristics for achieving morally good results, not as morality in and of itself.

I suppose whether or not the pebble-sorting metaphor is good depends on which meta-ethical theory is true.

I think that some sort of ethical naturalism (or "moral cognitivism" as Eliezer calls it) is correct, where "morally good" is somewhat synonymous with "helps people live lives full of positive values like love, joy, freedom, fairness, high challenge, etc." There is still much I'm not sure of, but I think, that is probably pretty close to the meaning of right. In Larry's case I would argue that homosexual relationships usually do help people live such lives.