I do not think people choose to be homosexual. I DO think people choose to act out in a homosexual way, though. I DO think people are responsible for their actions, whether they act upon their desires or do not act upon their desires. But I do not see any point in making the expression of love between two adults "wrong" in order to penalize the behavior, so that we can make people "responsible" for it in a negative way. I think homosexuals who want to marry, for example, are being very "responsible" for their behavior by wanting to make a commitment to a life partner, just as I applaud that kind of responsibility in heterosexual folks.
How do you feel about people taking responsibility for their love by making a life time commitment?
It is NOT a matter of logic that evolutionary theory leads to thinking people are not responsible for their actions. It seems to me extremely illogical to think that. I see evolution as a theory which might explain macro evolution, and obviously does explain microevolution (even most creationist folks admit that). I am sure that people cannot choose many things - for example you are born with certain traits, you are stuck with those. You may have blue eyes; you may be short; you may be born with low intelligence or a birth defect. I do not think we can hold people responsible for being born the way they are- so I don't want to punish people for being born stupid, or defective, and I don't think a Final Solution for such folks is a good idea (Hitler certainly wanted to hold folks responsible for their genetics, didn't he?). I do think that no matter how you start life, society has to pretend, even if it isn't true, that people can all be held to a certain low bar of responsibility for ACTIONS. That low bar ought to include things like not killing other people, not stealing, driving on the right side of the road, not molesting children- things like that. So EVEN if your genetics dictates that you need to do some of these things that violate societies rules, we need to hold people responsible because society just wouldn't work very well any other way. I have never met anyone who thought people should not be responsible for their actions because of evolution. I do know that some people are more compassionate about variations in people, and some people want to criminalize as few things as possible, because people do vary so much, and somethings (like drug use, for example) probably have a large genetic component. Where compassion and common sense can allow for lessened criminalization, I'm all for it. Incarceration and state imposed "responsibility" are expensive.
I know you think it is "logical" to make the leap from evolution to not holding people accountable. But can you find this anywhere, or is this just your idea? Because the whole idea is very strange to me. I certainly have never made the connection, and have never read about anyone making that connection.
Edit- the criminal law does recognize in cases of retardation and insanity a diminishment of responsibility. As you may know in death penalty cases we need to know if the person being tried is responsible for their actions. I'll be honest with you- I never really approved of that. I don't think being irresponsible about killing someone is any better than doing it with full responsibility. The victim is just as dead, and I can't say that I view the killer as any less dangerous for not having a high enough IQ, or being so crazy, he/she didn't understand his/her actions. |
