There seems to be a lot of debate with regards to the morality (ie, is it right or wrong) of homosexuality since the sodomy allegations against Anwar Ibrahim. I'd just like to highlight the fact that most people have a vastly simplistic view of the matter.

In fact, morality in general is less clear-cut than most think it is, which to me, means that we should, in most cases, try to understand, rather than judge. I'll just talk about things in a strictly non-religious way as each religion has its own definition of morality.

I'll also not cite sources as this is not an academic exercise and most of the things I say should be widely available on the Internet.

To begin, I believe there are to popular camps of beliefs - those who believe that sexuality is something someone is born with (ie, you are either homosexual or heterosexual and it is decided in your DNA) or those who believe that it is simply a matter of conscious preference.

Unfortunately, there's not enough scientific proof to substantiate either claim. While psychologists have established that the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals are different, they've stopped short of claiming sexuality is determined at childbirth.

In fact, all they've done is compounded the problem by proving that there is a biological element in sexuality, which means it isn't simply down to choice. On the less scientific side, sociologists have argued about almost every possibility.

There are those who claim that heterosexuality is merely a social construct created by the human race via 5,000 years of civilisation, just like it had created a male-dominated society.

There are also those who claim that all human beings are born inherently bisexual, and it is the way we are brought up that forms our sexual preferences.

Nobody knows the truth yet. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that ‘sexual orientation is probably not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences’.

Another popular (and again, flawed) judgement people like to pass is that homosexuality is a grossly unnatural act and that our Creator (if there is one) intended sex to be between a man and a woman only.

The popular counter argument to this is that homosexuality is a common behaviour in the animal kingdom (Google it if you really must know which animals. Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive list).

What, of course, both parties fail to realise is what philosophers call ‘Natural Fallacy’ - the belief that what is natural is indeed good. A little thought would explain why it is fallacious to think this way.

Jealousy, anger, aggression are often considered natural traits we inherited from our evolution from animals thousands and thousands of years ago. Does that make these traits good?

Probably the most widespread moral framework everyone knows is the ‘golden’ rule - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. Sounds flawless enough.

And based on such a rule, you wouldn't want to be ostracised based on your sexuality, so naturally, following the rule, you wouldn't ostracise others. But what the school teachers never thought us in primary school is when the golden rule fails.

Yes, like all rules, it is there to be broken. Consider this scenario - if A is a cannibal from a cannibalistic tribe and based on his upbringing, he's happy to cannibalise and to be cannibalised himself (should he fall in battle, for example), does it give him the right to cannibalise, say you and me who don't see eye to eye with him in terms of cannibalism?

Under the golden rule, that's fair game. I think most people will think that's a little iffy, if not plain wrong.

Then there is the common good approach (utilitarianism), which believes that whichever choice that produces the best possible results for the biggest majority of people is the way to go. Again, highly subjective and just as controversial.

One might argue that since homosexuality is non-reproductive, it does not contribute the greatest good to humanity as a whole.

But on the flip side, one can argue that the time and effort we spend trying to hinder/promote homosexuality would far better be spent on more useful pursuits and thus we should embrace it and move on.

I could go on and on about a gazillion angles you could base your judgement on. Theses are wrote based on just such things. But that isn't my point.

My point is that there clearly isn't a definitive answer and it most certainly isn't as black and white as most people think it is.