Now I am convicted of murder, and I have a reputable scientist show that it was ingrained in my genes, being an animal and all, that murder conviction should be thrown out correct?
Now that gene that makes me a murderer is defined and shown in 10% of all newborns as being predisposed to being a murderer how should we deal with them? Or adults that show that gene?
I mean being gay is being shown as being “born with” not a choice so being a murderer or rapist or intelligent might just be “in the genes” right? Or am I missing something, nurture over nature sort of argument?
Yes, it is. And I think gay people are using the wrong platform for their argument. Gays should not be allowed to live their life because they were “born that way.”
If that is so, then a pedophile should be allowed to live their life as they see fit as well.
Gays should be allowed to live their life as a gay person because they “choose” to live that life, and in that choice, they are not harming anyone else. It’s the same thing with religion. Choose whatever religion you like, as long as you are not harming someone else. But, it would be a very lame argument to say “I was born Catholic, and I have to live my life that way, because I have no choice.”
I can see how it might add to the weight of a ‘diminished responsibility’ plea, but it isn’t going to mean you walk out scot free. Why should it? - we imprison dangerous people partly because they are dangerous - demonstrating that you have an inbuilt compulsion to murder strengthens the argument that you should not be walking the streets.
Ummm… but most of those 10% never go on to commit murder, in which case the genetic factor could be argued to be not all that significant.
I think if you can show a gene causes almost inevitable homocidal behavior without some kind of intervention, then for heaven’s sake, intervene. Problem is, no such relationship has been established, and I’m not holding my breath. Have fun with your hypothetical bizarro-world rationalizations.
As it is, gay gene or no, there’s no need to “intervene”. Being gay is harmless. Or rather, it’s harmful to the gay person so long as the bastards of this world can weild their undue and hideously unjust influence over the lives of gay people.
I’d say some really nasty shit, but we’re in GD, after all.
Whatever its cause, murder is something which must be minimised. The if…then consequences of murder are thus reinforced and communicated to learning animals called humans by publicly depriving murderers of their liberty.
Homosexual acts could also be minimised regardless of their ultimate cause. Do you believe that society should provide disincentives for homosexual acts?
But then shouldn’t the definition be changed? If I program the perfect little robot to kill someone is it the robots fault? No it would be my fault, so if I am programmed by nature to be a killer then its not my fault its natures fault…
If a dog kills a person, the dog is destroyed. It’s not the dog’s “fault.” But the dog did it.
The punishment for murder might change if you could prove it isn’t your fault, but the definition doesn’t need changed. And you would be a greater danger than if you killed under certain other circumstances.
The fallacy here is that you’re talking as if trial and sentencing is solely about finding fault and punishing - it isn’t - as I said, part of the reason we incarcerate killers is to remove them from situations where they might re-offend.