Study finds genes on X chromosome linked to male homosexuality

page: 12
25
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

DeepVisions
Lets say there is a society of homosexuals and a society of heterosexuals. Which society will last the most generations?




Do the homosexuals have scientists?

You do realize, that at this point in our technological development, sex is not actually required for reproduction, per se?

Furthermore, quite a number of homosexuals have actually had heterosexual sex, and had children with their very own genes. Just because they don't like it, doesn't mean they couldn't do it.

I'm actually pretty sure they'd figure out a way to make it work.




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   

StalkerSolent

Krazysh0t


So you are saying that this is all ok because we can choose not to act on these urges? Even if those urges happen to be genetically working against us? Even if those urges are actually HARDER to make in favor of what God wants? That is ridiculous.

By the way, anti-social disorder, what you called sociopathic tendencies, is genetic. Also good and evil don't exist, they are just made up words to describe behaviors that certain humans don't like.


Why is this ridiculous? Most moral theories involve making choices against our predispositions and doing hard things. This is an age-old, time honored concept. Whether the predispositions are genetic or the result of constructs (nature or nurture) man has a lot of tendencies that are generally considered unacceptable, and the solution hasn't been to say "restraining our urges is bad" but rather to determine which urges ought to be restrained.


No my point was that we are talking about a choice that the majority of the population can make easily because they are predisposed to make that choice, but a minority finds that this choice is exceedingly hard to make because they are predisposed to make the other choice. This results in this minority being unhappy and not content. Isn't the goal of life to be happy and fulfilled? How can you be happy when you are lying to your base sexual urges?


So, good and evil don't exist, they are just made up words. OK. Doesn't that mean that most concepts don't exist, they are just made up words? (I believe that's nominalism.) Doesn't that mean that rights don't exist either?


If you want to go down that road, I don't care. I subscribe to moral relativism and to use the Golden Rule to determine if what I should and shouldn't do. Explain to me how homosexuality violates the Golden Rule and you MAY have an argument.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

iwilliam

DeepVisions
Lets say there is a society of homosexuals and a society of heterosexuals. Which society will last the most generations?




Do the homosexuals have scientists?

You do realize, that at this point in our technological development, sex is not actually required for reproduction, per se?

Furthermore, quite a number of homosexuals have actually had heterosexual sex, and had children with their very own genes. Just because they don't like it, doesn't mean they couldn't do it.

I'm actually pretty sure they'd figure out a way to make it work.


Read the Forever War. It actually talks about how society morphs into a purely homosexual society as the main character jumps in and out of society by fighting battles that take many years to get there and back. Even the main character's mother ends up becoming a lesbian. The title of the book gives away what happens to society. It continues to last through selective breeding and in vitro fertilization. Great book on social commentary about what defines a society, don't want to give away the ending (actually I haven't even given away the main plot), should give it a read if you haven't.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

No my point was that we are talking about a choice that the majority of the population can make easily because they are predisposed to make that choice, but a minority finds that this choice is exceedingly hard to make because they are predisposed to make the other choice. This results in this minority being unhappy and not content. Isn't the goal of life to be happy and fulfilled? How can you be happy when you are lying to your base sexual urges?


Right...so...a majority of the population doesn't have the urge to conquer the world and drive its population before it. A minority finds that the choice not to do this is exceedingly hard because they are predisposed to conquer the world and drive its population before it...etc. etc. Isn't the goal of life to be happy and fulfilled? How can you be happy and fulfilled while lying to your base urges that require you to rape, pillage and burn!?

(And incidentally, please don't argue that people don't have those urges. History is full of enough petty dictators that I think it's obvious that some people do, even if most of us can't empathize with it as easily as we may be able to with sexual urges.)

I am NOT equating homosexuality with rape, pillaging, and burning, please don't misunderstand me. I simply find the argument that we should be able to do whatever we want silly. And I find the argument that right and wrong are constructs, but nevertheless we should respect other people's "rights" (which are an even more recent construct than right/wrong) unfulfilling and inconsistent.

If your argument is right, and people's lives are about happiness and fulfillment, (but we still want to respect human rights) then certain people with certain urges are always getting screwed by life. Sucks for them.

Honestly, I figure if you go through life looking for happiness and fulfillment, you prolly won't find it. But that's just me. We really can't tell until it's too late, anyhow. (Classic problem of the "Good Life.")



If you want to go down that road, I don't care. I subscribe to moral relativism and to use the Golden Rule to determine if what I should and shouldn't do. Explain to me how homosexuality violates the Golden Rule and you MAY have an argument.


If you want to subscribe to moral relativism, cool, but please don't try to argue that I should also respect human rights. If we're living in a morally relativistic framework, no way am I going to shackle myself to the Golden Rule. Why would I? Too many people don't. More like, "get what I can while trying not to get too many people mad at me." Anyway, the Golden Rule doesn't fulfill my urges to take over the world.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLotLizard
 


And I love that you think I was talking to you in particular.

Again, the only reason people would feel unhappy being gay is because people make them feel bad about it. They wouldn't feel broken or abnormal if there weren't people telling them that they are broken and abnormal.

See, that was direct response to you.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


I'd say that my outlook is the fairest one you can have. Do whatever you like as long as it doesn't negatively effect me and mine. Pretty simple. It also precludes your silly world conqueror example since that would negatively effect me. Look I understand how moral relativism works, but we still need rules to guide society. The hard part is figuring out where to draw the line. I say that as your actions are none of my business, I have no right or need to tell you that it is wrong. So show me how homosexuality is negatively effecting you. What does two men loving each other do to you negatively?

The only valid reason for your defense is the "God says it's bad," reasoning. Well look around, I don't see God cracking down on anything that you guys deem as bad or wrong. But even so, that is a problem for the homosexuals no? If homosexuality is indeed wrong because God says so, what does that have to do with you? You aren't gay.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


I'd say that my outlook is the fairest one you can have. Do whatever you like as long as it doesn't negatively effect me and mine. Pretty simple. It also precludes your silly world conqueror example since that would negatively effect me. Look I understand how moral relativism works, but we still need rules to guide society. The hard part is figuring out where to draw the line. I say that as your actions are none of my business, I have no right or need to tell you that it is wrong. So show me how homosexuality is negatively effecting you. What does two men loving each other do to you negatively?

The only valid reason for your defense is the "God says it's bad," reasoning. Well look around, I don't see God cracking down on anything that you guys deem as bad or wrong. But even so, that is a problem for the homosexuals no? If homosexuality is indeed wrong because God says so, what does that have to do with you? You aren't gay.


Why?
Why do we need rules to guide society?
And while your convenient set of rules does keep poor me from taking over the world, it doesn't address the issue of people whose urges are not considered "civilized." They're not happy or fulfilled. What about them? If you believe the goal of life is for people to be happy and fulfilled, a LOT of people are getting screwed. I'd try to set more achievable goals, or find better methods of achieving happiness and fulfillment.

I don't remember claiming that homosexuality is negatively affecting me. But neither does gang wars.

What defense? I haven't been arguing against homosexual behavior on this thread; I've been addressing the "I was born this way" argument because I don't think it stands up (no offense.)

And "you guys?" Which guys?
God, in most religions, does all the "cracking down" after people are dead. God also doesn't seem to be cracking down on terrorist, theft, adultery or lying...in fact, if a deity exists it seems to pretty much let us sort out our own differences. So I'm not sure why I should expect God to be smiting homosexuals...



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

BDBinc
If people are wanting this gay gene nonsense to be true to make homosexuality - in their mind- "natural" or "not a sin" -that is the bias.




BDBinc, you have again twisted and used my words here inappropriately. Please don't keep doing this. Your prejudice is your responsibility, not mine. As you are well aware, I was replying to a hypothetical question not to the study so just please stop taking cheap shots at me and twisting my words to suit your platform. Its bad form, so obvious and really low. Of course I am biased, not just because of my sexuality, because I am HUMAN and I know real people are dying out here, real humans are living in despair and some in terror, and that matters to me.


Ro.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


If we're living in a morally relativistic framework

Of course we are.


Why do we need rules to guide society?

That's self-evident. Don't be absurd.


They're not happy or fulfilled. What about them? If you believe the goal of life is for people to be happy and fulfilled, a LOT of people are getting screwed.

Because it isn't about one person's happiness it is about all of us together. Hence said person's happiness can't come at the explicit harm of another. Obviously that would be antithetical to happiness of others. As Sam Harris said during his Ted Talk on morality, "..we have to talk about well-being in a larger context. It's all of us in this together, not one man feeling ecstasy and then blowing himself up on a bus."

God, in most religions, does all the "cracking down" after people are dead.

if a deity exists it seems to pretty much let us sort out our own differences. So I'm not sure why I should expect God to be smiting homosexuals…

Global flood. Plagues on Egypt. Sodom and Gomorra. Messing with Jobs life. Telling Abraham to kill his son…

According to religions that discriminate against gays, this biblical god does in fact interfere directly.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Rosha

BDBinc
If people are wanting this gay gene nonsense to be true to make homosexuality - in their mind- "natural" or "not a sin" -that is the bias.


As you are well aware, I was replying to a hypothetical question not to the study so just please stop taking cheap shots at me and twisting my words to suit your platform. Its bad form, so obvious and really low.


Ro.


But I have not addressed you since the time you admitted you have no knowledge or training in genetics to argue the topic and it wasn't a good idea to argue with idiots.
Note my comment was addressed to the thread in general not you , some who keep believing from the thread title that there is a gay gene discovered when no such findings were produced by the study .
And I also kindly provided the reason for the cognitive bias on this media BS which is being eaten up.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

BDBinc

Rosha

BDBinc
If people are wanting this gay gene nonsense to be true to make homosexuality - in their mind- "natural" or "not a sin" -that is the bias.


As you are well aware, I was replying to a hypothetical question not to the study so just please stop taking cheap shots at me and twisting my words to suit your platform. Its bad form, so obvious and really low.


Ro.


But I have not addressed you since the time you admitted you have no knowledge or training in genetics to argue the topic and it wasn't a good idea to argue with idiots.
Note my comment was addressed to the thread in general not you , some who keep believing from the thread title that there is a gay gene discovered when no such findings were produced by the study .
And I also kindly provided the reason for the cognitive bias on this media BS which is being eaten up.




You did not address me though you used my words quite happily. My comment about arguing with idiots was in reply to your unnecessarily snide comment in reply to me. I do know something about this, only that knowledge is not from a scientific perspective and I do have a stake in scientific outcomes on this, regardless of your opinion of it. In any case, you have already been debunked on your position already. You can keep spewing it out , as much as you like, your free to, it wont change that. You will only ever convince those who already dont read or think, that repetition of a flawed argument is somehow validation of it. Meh..how you waste your energy is your business. Just dont use my words please to bolster your platform. A simple request I am sure you can understand. As I have said quite clearly, I feel sciences best role in this is to remove the current moral disparity, remove the excuse active abusers are using to manipulate fear, to murder and harm other humans. That way at least, when you do choose to abuse and harm another human, it really is all on 'you'....no more blaming ' superior or inferior genes' for giving you right 'right' to do it. It is not much, but it is a start.

done.

Ro.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   

StalkerSolent

Krazysh0t
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


I'd say that my outlook is the fairest one you can have. Do whatever you like as long as it doesn't negatively effect me and mine. Pretty simple. It also precludes your silly world conqueror example since that would negatively effect me. Look I understand how moral relativism works, but we still need rules to guide society. The hard part is figuring out where to draw the line. I say that as your actions are none of my business, I have no right or need to tell you that it is wrong. So show me how homosexuality is negatively effecting you. What does two men loving each other do to you negatively?

The only valid reason for your defense is the "God says it's bad," reasoning. Well look around, I don't see God cracking down on anything that you guys deem as bad or wrong. But even so, that is a problem for the homosexuals no? If homosexuality is indeed wrong because God says so, what does that have to do with you? You aren't gay.


Why?
Why do we need rules to guide society?


Is this a real question? Some people like to hurt others, this should be frowned upon.


And while your convenient set of rules does keep poor me from taking over the world, it doesn't address the issue of people whose urges are not considered "civilized." They're not happy or fulfilled. What about them? If you believe the goal of life is for people to be happy and fulfilled, a LOT of people are getting screwed. I'd try to set more achievable goals, or find better methods of achieving happiness and fulfillment.


I already made a statement saying that a line needs to be drawn. And this is as close as you can come to no rules free for all you can get. If this makes people who want to harm others unhappy, I fail to see that as a problem. Not to mention, regardless of what position you take, someone will be unhappy. The person trying to harm others, has the potential to harm more than one, so his actions being legal will create FAR more unhappiness than making it illegal for him to partake in those actions. Since either stance creates unhappiness, then we can only try to minimize the unhappiness. Therefore harming others is wrong.


I don't remember claiming that homosexuality is negatively affecting me. But neither does gang wars.


Gang wars are negatively effecting other people, maybe not you particularly, but then again, when I said you, I wasn't talking about just you. I was talking about anyone.


What defense? I haven't been arguing against homosexual behavior on this thread; I've been addressing the "I was born this way" argument because I don't think it stands up (no offense.)


Why would I take offense? I'm not gay.


And "you guys?" Which guys?
God, in most religions, does all the "cracking down" after people are dead. God also doesn't seem to be cracking down on terrorist, theft, adultery or lying...in fact, if a deity exists it seems to pretty much let us sort out our own differences. So I'm not sure why I should expect God to be smiting homosexuals...


So give me a basis for why being homosexual is unacceptable.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


So now, having gotten rid of God, what moral arguments do you propose we use? And from what should we create our morality? Or do you believe in some sort of natural law?

Since this question is constantly put to moral relativists from the religious. I am going to turn it on you for a change.

There are horribly atrocious actions condoned in the Old Testament. Completely vile things that neither your no other modern day Christians would do. Not just because you would be prisoned but because you truly feel it to be wrong.

The normal response here is that those were for the biblical Israelites. Not for us.

Okay. Fine. What's the implication however? Change. What does change imply in the context of morality? Moral relativism.

Even the biblical people who claim objective morality are looking at their own religion through a relativist lens.

To answer your question directly. When we get rid of god as the source of morality we are getting rid of the notion we would only draw from one central source. So…. it frees us to draw from many sources. We as a society should deliberate ideas constantly. We together can decide what makes moral sense for our society. It's what we have been doing. Not a new idea I am suggesting should be introduced. Ship has sailed.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   


That's self-evident. Don't be absurd.


People use "self-evident" to handwave away things like "is there an absolute morality" or "is there a God?" I don't see why this should be any different.



Because it isn't about one person's happiness it is about all of us together. Hence said person's happiness can't come at the explicit harm of another. Obviously that would be antithetical to happiness of others. As Sam Harris said during his Ted Talk on morality, "..we have to talk about well-being in a larger context. It's all of us in this together, not one man feeling ecstasy and then blowing himself up on a bus."


So it's about happiness, then?
So it's OK for the Muslims in Saudi Arabia to dictate how a woman dresses because the majority of them are happier when they are "not being tempted by immodest women." Or it is OK for a majority-Christian country to ban homosexual marriage because it makes them happier as a whole, even if it hurts a few individuals?

Why should I care about other's happiness anyway? I mean, if that one guy has his moment of ecstasy right before the bomb goes off, and there is nothing objectively wrong with it, why should he deny himself that, even if it does come at the expense of a few other people? I don't understand what's so great about other people.

It seems...herd-like. Weak. Petty.
It seems like you're taking Biblical ethics (Golden Rule), dumping the rest of the framework, and then trying to stick by that one thing.
And I don't see why I should. Who cares about other people?



Global flood. Plagues on Egypt. Sodom and Gomorra. Messing with Jobs life. Telling Abraham to kill his son…

According to religions that discriminate against gays, this biblical god does in fact interfere directly.


Oh, sure, once or twice, and lots of people will claim He is today...but I haven't heard a voice from the heavens. Do you think He is running around smushing people He doesn't like?
Because from what I've seen, God pretty more or less lets people do their own thing while we're here on earth. Perhaps you disagree?
edit on 17-2-2014 by StalkerSolent because: Agh! Quotes!



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


So now, having gotten rid of God, what moral arguments do you propose we use? And from what should we create our morality? Or do you believe in some sort of natural law?

Since this question is constantly put to moral relativists from the religious. I am going to turn it on you for a change.

There are horribly atrocious actions condoned in the Old Testament. Completely vile things that neither your no other modern day Christians would do. Not just because you would be prisoned but because you truly feel it to be wrong.

The normal response here is that those were for the biblical Israelites. Not for us.

Okay. Fine. What's the implication however? Change. What does change imply in the context of morality? Moral relativism.

Even the biblical people who claim objective morality are looking at their own religion through a relativist lens.

To answer your question directly. When we get rid of god as the source of morality we are getting rid of the notion we would only draw from one central source. So…. it frees us to draw from many sources. We as a society should deliberate ideas constantly. We together can decide what makes moral sense for our society. It's what we have been doing. Not a new idea I am suggesting should be introduced. Ship has sailed.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


No offense, but I don't think you understand the premise of the Bible.
I'm pretty sympathetic to some twists on moral relativism, but this is a misunderstanding of the text.

In the Bible (and, I understand, in the Koran) there are specific commandments that are time-and-place specific. They are not moral commandments. These are orders meant to be followed by the people that were ordered to do them.

Then there are general moral guidelines, which have remained more-or-less the same throughout the Bible and, as far as I know, the Koran.

Analogous example: we order soldiers in wartime (wartime, IIRC, is when most of these deeds in the Koran and Old Testament took place) to kill people. That's illegal and immoral in civilian life.
There is a long history of moral codes that permit things in wartime (for example) that are not permitted at other times. That is not because one does not believe in objective good and evil, but rather because one has a moral framework capable of discernment.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

Is this a real question? Some people like to hurt others, this should be frowned upon.


Sure, it's a real question. I'm curious as to what you think.
Why should we frown on it? Wolves like to eat deer. Should we frown on this too?



I already made a statement saying that a line needs to be drawn. And this is as close as you can come to no rules free for all you can get. If this makes people who want to harm others unhappy, I fail to see that as a problem. Not to mention, regardless of what position you take, someone will be unhappy. The person trying to harm others, has the potential to harm more than one, so his actions being legal will create FAR more unhappiness than making it illegal for him to partake in those actions. Since either stance creates unhappiness, then we can only try to minimize the unhappiness. Therefore harming others is wrong.


Well, sure, but isn't it sometimes possible that harming someone is right, because it brings about greater happiness? (Defensive war, self-defense, executions, etc...) At the very least, we have to restrain criminals.




Why would I take offense? I'm not gay.


I was picking on your argument.




So give me a basis for why being homosexual is unacceptable.


There is no basis for homosexuality being unacceptable within a morally subjective framework. But then again, there's no framework for anything else being unacceptable either.

If you're into science like I am, I don't think we've had enough time and evidence to gather data as a society on the effects of homosexuality. However, I have some concerns about how it is changing the idea of an acceptable family structure. IIRC, children in single-parent homes suffer greatly in child development, with repercussions into adulthood. I have a hunch that the ideas that drive homosexual marriage will ultimately exacerbate this problem. HOWEVER, the subject is so politically charged and so recent that I'm not very confident in the data at this point in time (that's how I feel about the study in this thread.) Time will tell.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


I'm pretty sympathetic to some twists on moral relativism

Why? Which ones? And how does that support objective morality and not moral relativism?


In the Bible there are specific commandments that are time-and-place specific. They are not moral commandments. These are orders meant to be followed by the people that were ordered to do them.

You are interjecting faith in order to determine they are not "moral commandments".

To everyone outside of religion when that 'order to be followed' comes in the form of say killing non-believers, it's very much a moral issue.

If you take god out of the equation what we have is a society acting out their morality based on biblical scripture, and then later no longer doing so. You have to put god back into the equation to get it to work. However, since there is zero evidence of that god's existence it's quite clear this is instead an example of moral relativism. We have no good reason to believe it was anything other than social progress.

I must say if it's true they were just following god's orders with no mind to its moral ramifications as you said. Why the hell would we want to follow a being like that for our morality?? Divine Command Theory: it's good because it's coming from god. Abandon everything you know about what is good and just do what I tell you. No thanks.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


Of course, I can think of many different reasons to violate the Golden Rule. I do admit that I think of it as more of a guideline. But here's the thing, we need to be able to utilize common sense to solve our problems. One of the problems with laws is the clear cut right or wrong part of it. Morality is subjective. I can think of cases where stealing or murder would not only be justified, but celebrated, but those are extreme cases. We can also use our common sense to tell the two types apart. In other words, in order for an act that harms another person to be acceptable, extraordinary circumstances have to be present to justify it. For instance a poor person stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children for the night. He isn't stealing the loaf for himself and it is a one oft thing.

Of course all this is a failing in how we right laws. But it also begs the question, how do you right a law that allows for common sense bending of the rules without leaving it open to blatant misuse by sinister parties?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   


Why? Which ones? And how does that support objective morality and not moral relativism?


I think circumstances, like war, make it morally permissible to do things we wouldn't otherwise do.
It's not supportive of objective or subjective morality, it's just the way I see the world.



You are interjecting faith in order to determine they are not "moral commandments".

To everyone outside of religion when that 'order to be followed' comes in the form of say killing non-believers, it's very much a moral issue.

If you take god out of the equation what we have is a society acting out their morality based on biblical scripture, and then later no longer doing so. You have to put god back into the equation to get it to work. However, since there is zero evidence of that god's existence it's quite clear this is instead an example of moral relativism. We have no good reason to believe it was anything other than social progress.

I must say if it's true they were just following god's orders with no mind to its moral ramifications as you said. Why the hell would we want to follow a being like that for our morality?? Divine Command Theory: it's good because it's coming from god. Abandon everything you know about what is good and just do what I tell you. No thanks.


Actually, no, I mean within the context of the writings themselves they are meant as specific orders at a specific time. That's not to say morality has no bearing on them, simply that they weren't issued as general commandments. It's all about context. Whether you believe God exists or not, when the actual books you are referencing say things like "now this commandment was only limited to this context," then you realize that it's not a general moral command, it's a specific command for a specific people. You're dragging your own belief system into the matter and insisting on the Bible/Koran being morally relativistic because God doesn't exist. The entire Bible/Koran is predicated on the existence of God, so I don't see evidence of moral relativism sans God, I see fables.

And re: divine command theory, what do you *know* about morality? And if something designed you, who do you think knows how you work best: yourself or the designer?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


Of course, I can think of many different reasons to violate the Golden Rule. I do admit that I think of it as more of a guideline. But here's the thing, we need to be able to utilize common sense to solve our problems. One of the problems with laws is the clear cut right or wrong part of it. Morality is subjective. I can think of cases where stealing or murder would not only be justified, but celebrated, but those are extreme cases. We can also use our common sense to tell the two types apart. In other words, in order for an act that harms another person to be acceptable, extraordinary circumstances have to be present to justify it. For instance a poor person stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children for the night. He isn't stealing the loaf for himself and it is a one oft thing.

Of course all this is a failing in how we right laws. But it also begs the question, how do you right a law that allows for common sense bending of the rules without leaving it open to blatant misuse by sinister parties?


You have an awful lot of faith in common sense.
For most of history, it was common sense that homosexuality was wrong and should not be tolerated. Are you sure you want to base your moral code on it?





new topics
top topics
 
25
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join