MAN ON DOG? (Lawmakers move to lower penalty for bestiality … seriously)

If AIDS treatment and drugs were not subsidized by everyone else, very few homosexuals (or anyone else) would be able to pay for them.

I have sympathy for those infected with HIV due to transfusions or needle sticks. Actually a great deal of sympathy, because if it were not for homosexuals, and to a lesser extent, drug addicts (who are often prostitutes into the bargain), the blood supply wouldn't be tainted.

But for those who engage in the very acts that everyone above the age of 5 knows will give them AIDS, my sympathy doesn't extend to wanting to distribute the contents of my wallet.

there is a difference between zoophilia and bestiality which I won't get into on this board for the sake of decorum

Well I have news for anyone willing to distinguish this from pedophiles. I consider my dogs as much a part of the family as I do my children. I don't see a whole lot of difference between them raping my daughter or my best friend, who happens to be canine. The sick SOB that screws with either one in this manner will be pushing up daisies regardless!

The purpose of law (in my opinion) is to protect the rights and freedoms of the individual while providing a framework within which members of a society can live and interact while safe, productive, and secure with as much individual autononomy as possible. Morals-based strictures that do not aid in these goals are not appropriate. For the opposite of what I'm talking about, see the Taliban.

I think actually it's the word 'law' that we are using differently. It sounds as though you are using "law" to refer to the absolute divine law ordained by God (I'll call that Law with a capital L) and using "government" to mean the secular legal structures (law with a little l) developed by people. 'Morality' = 'Law' in your construct, and ideal law should be an approximation of Law. (This is my interpretation of your post - correct me if I'm wrong.)

My view is a little different: I see Law as something that is not absolute, but will vary between cultures, religions, etc. The Law for the Hindu is not the Law of the Christian, and so on. It doesn't need a religious base, for example a vegan will abide by a moral structure (a secular 'Law') that has been arrived at philosophically, perhaps without reference to a higher power. Individuals may abide by a different Law, depending on culture and upbringing.

On the other hand, law (small l) is the structure that a society creates in order to achieve the secular goals that I laid out. Individuals within a society may follow different Laws, but they are all subject to the same law to allow the society to function. It's this law that I believe should not have a basis solely in morality, because members of the society may not share a common moral structure. Small l law should impinge on personal freedom (and personal adherence to Law) as little as possible.

I do agree with you on the idea that a shared morality is part of the glue that binds a culture, and a society with shared cultural values is a stronger society. However, I don't think that law is the correct mechanism for producing this cultural sharing. (In the real world it's not as clear-cut as I describe - interactions between 'society' and 'culture' tend to dilute the idealized version of law that I describe, but that may not always be a bad thing in a pragmatic sense, although I might dislike it in an academic sense.)

Anyway, thanks for your substantive response - I've enjoyed thinking about the topic even though there probably won't be many minds changed on this thread...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.