[RubiedCross]

I'm throwing myself a bone and revisiting this thread for extreme nostalgia (because I'm too lazy to find my old thread I made and read through every single post).

Yes, this is a bump and is reviving a thread that should not (I believe) have been allowed in a critical thinking thread because to "think" is to use "reason". Reasoning requires logic and justifications that should inherently be objective if they are to be discussed (which, in discussing objectivity we'd come to a conclusion much faster than is seen in this thread). Opinions - such as the majority of what I posted over a year ago now - are welcome on this website, but should be limited in a section such as this. Lovers of opinion (i.e. pretty much the entire human race) should find it hard to discuss a topic here, because to discuss logic with anything but logic is just silly. However, it has been discussed and (possibly) will be discussed further, no thanks to my post.

Thus, in answering the title, we should ask what "scale" of "right and wrong" we should use here. If I were to use my own opinion (which I now avoid when discussing anything that requires more than the basic level of thought required to operate in contemporary society), I would base use my own reference of "right and wrong": the Christian Bible. HOWEVER, I will not go any further into that because my faith and reasons for believing the Bible are in progress and are not for me to argue on a level of critical thinking. I've yet to discern the Bible thoroughly enough to truly say I understand it; I would never denounce it though, because of some of the few basic principles that I do believe. Dogma and brainwash, I know, I understand - that is why I'm going to, for my own sake, read and study it further and find the logic and reasoning behind it. I will take from it what I can, as I would expect anyone else who's willing to do so would. Therefore, I will abstain from discussing an answer to this question based on the Bible and some of my old viewpoints from it (A big thanks to Rubix/Fido/Robertsona for arguing with me. You were right, I had no foundation).

How else can we look at this, then? What other scales can we use? Since I believe your target audience is wider than just individuals, we'll broaden it to a country - America. According to "America's 'rights and wrongs'", is it wrong to be gay? Well, I would assume that, in discussing the opinion of a country, you would look at its foundations. We'll take a big leap over discussing a lot of the Bill of Rights and just jump to a conclusion that no, it is not wrong (this could be discussed in an entirely different topic, if you believe differently. For example, the idea that this Bill of Rights was written for the common man, for "everyone who is created equal". It is written for the beast that is society, a beast that is, according to Plato's account of Socrates' thoughts, deaf and dumb and stupid [I have just recently read a segment from the Republic and find Socrates very intriguing and a worthwhile person to study]. Thus, from this, I'd expect the Bill of Rights to be generic, human, and imperfect. I would also expect society to oppose that which rules it half the time, if only because it really can't, as a whole, be capable of reasonable thought. This creates many yes and no answers and really exemplifies how interesting of a discussion this could be logically and with opinions if one so chooses).

Let's look at it scientifically. First of all, science is objective and not opinionated. There is no "right" or "wrong". Biologically, according to evolution, we reproduce with the best, try to extend our genes' lives, etc. Rubix explains a good deal of this very briefly on page 17 on so. Purely biologically and evolutionarily, homosexuality does not benefit ones' genes. However, we are advanced creatures; we have intellectual and emotional capacities that do not limit us to evolutionary goals. That would be delving into psychology and behaviors, though.

Let's look at psychology, then. Freud, for example. According to Freud, ANYTHING to produces bodily pleasure. Therefore, eating is sex. Breathing is sex. Sex is sex. If homosexuality brings you physical pleasure, you're just bringing pleasure to your body. It is your eros, a part of your primitive part of the brain, that controls these. Mind you, this is all part of the "Id", which is basically a subconscious part of your brain that people consider to be an animal-like way of behaving. It is up to your Ego to decide whether these drives are done or not, and your Superego to decide whether or not they are "right" or "wrong". Your Superego is developed by your morals, culture, and society. So, according to Freud, wanting to participate in pleasure is fine; it is YOU who decides whether it is wrong or not (and by you he means your Superego, which is defined by your culture, which refers to many different areas that can't be pinpointed). Basically, we'll say that it's not wrong according to Freudian psychology. Just know that a lot of his ideas aren't widely used by professionals today, only studied, which is why Freud is a common and well-known name. I can't personally get into any other modern psychological analyses of this since I have not studied them and am not fit to discuss it; that's where this sort of thread comes in handy and someone else does it for me, so I don't have to spend time researching it on my own (which I would inevitably do if I was discussing it so that I would not be misinformed).

The answer should be, for the intents and purposes of this thread, no. I should hope there is another thread in here that does discuss "right" and "wrong" (I think I saw one years ago but was more than likely overwhelmed by what was there). That's where you would go to really answer your question, but let's just keep it (fairly) simple for now.

I would recommend to ALL of you, however, that you attempt to find out for yourselves what really "is". Set your opinions aside for a while and try to discern facts, ideas, concepts, etc. Think critically. If you don't enjoy it, maybe it's not for you, and that's not bad. Things like philosophy and "critical thinking" are not meant for everyone. Take a philosophy class if you're really interested in this stuff. Even if it's not for you, you will learn. Don't be put off by ideas if they offend you; think about why they offend you. Learning something new should be a pain (it's kind of like exercising physically - no pain no gain). Again, it's not for everyone, but if you're reading this, then maybe you'd be willing to give it a shot.

That's my two cents. I probably won't be back for another year or so, so I hope you all take care and learn something new each day.