No. Right and wrong are moral valuations. We're not discussing the wrong answers to the problem 2 + 2 = ?.
But you just contradicted yourself. You just stated that "wrong" doesn't necessarily have a moral implication, as in the case of mathematics. That's all I'm saying. People think a lot of things are "correct" or "wrong" and morality doesn't always enter into the thought-process.
People who claim same sex marriage is wrong are making moral judgements on the actions of others. That it's wrong for them to make those judgements is a different moral assessment.
Some of them simply think it's naturally wrong. I happen to think homosexuality is both naturally occurring and has a purpose. Like any other decision that nature makes through trial and error.
Which does nothing to address the correct assessment that over time all behaviors either serve, or do not serve, evolution of the species, as do all inherited physical traits.
Homosexuality isn't an inherited trait. Heterosexual parents can have homosexual children. That's true in human beings, as well as many other animals. It exists and--just like many adaptations--it probably serves a natural purpose.
When I say "purpose" I am talking about a function. A fish's gills serves a purpose.
Evolution happens when indivduals get together and produce offspring.
That's part of the process. But homosexuality isn't an wrong evolutionary step, it's more like a safety valve for the entire species population.
First you complain about the right wingers and their idiot "intelligent design", then you want to pretend a genetic flaw or a behavioral defect has a "purpose".
Make up your mind.
I never said intelligent design was a stupid idea. I was talking about irony.
You believe in some form of intelligent design. Thank you for confirming this.
I'm open minded. Thanks for confirming you're not?
The maladaptation represented by homosexuality has no special function in the plan for humanity because there is no plan.
You are simultaneously claiming that that homosexuality is an adaptation (you claim it's a bad one), therefore assigning stupid or intelligent decisions to the natural process of adaptation. While you are assigning intelligence to mother nature, you are arguing that there is no intelligence behind the natural process of evolution.
Camouflage would appear to be an extremely clever decision for evolution to make. It serves a purpose, although you claim nothing in nature has a purpose. Camouflage may have come about by random chance, but it seems more likely on some level and intelligent decision was made. I don't believe in God, but adaptation isn't chaos and random chance.
Maybe you don't want to face the reality that there's no plan.
Maybe you can avoid presuming you know what I do or do not believe, if you don't know just ask.