iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Florida's Bestiality Law May Have Accidentally Outlawed Sex Entirely [UPDATED]

First Posted: 05/11/11 08:07 PM ET   Updated: 07/11/11 06:12 AM ET

There may be some terrible news to report out of Florida today, depending on how the state's residents have collectively decided to apply the basic science of biological classification to their lives. Last week, we noted some good news: The Florida legislature had finally passed a law that would outlaw bestiality and preserve the innocence of Florida's native fauna.

At the time, I posited that only shiny-pated grifter-Governor Rick Scott could possibly foul up the effort. But over at Southern Fried Science, blogger "Andrew" points out that the law's wording has basically outlawed sex entirely:

An act relating to sexual activities involving animals; creating s. 828.126, F.S.; providing definitions; prohibiting knowing sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal; prohibiting specified related activities; providing penalties; providing that the act does not apply to certain husbandry, conformation judging, and veterinary practices; providing an effective date.

Click here for a handy visual provided by Southern Fried Science that elucidates the fact that human beings are smack dab in the middle of the animal kingdom -- by which he means the "group of multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia" and not the horse that won the 2011 Kentucky Derby (being "smack dab in the middle" of a thoroughbred horse is a situation the law originally intended to prevent).

Andrew ends with a quip:

So if you’re living in Florida on October 1, 2011 and would like to have sexual intercourse with a consenting adult, please check with your veterinarian or local livestock breeder first to make sure you abide by "accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices.”

(As it happens, I already check with my veterinarian and local livestock breeder prior to intercourse, but my therapist tells me that this is a "fetish" that he'd like me to consider discontinuing.)

UPDATE: Good news and sweet relief for the people of Florida. Per the Southern Fried Scientist, here's a "a slightly less humorous but technically correct" way of looking at things:

The problem with this interpretation is that the statute itself explicitly distinguishes between "persons" and "animals," prohibiting sex acts between the two groups. A court facing a question of interpreting the statute would almost certainly read the statute's use of the term "animals" as "non-human animals," both to avoid absurdity and to conform with (1) the intent of the drafters; (2) the purpose of the statute; and (3) a commonly used (if scientifically inaccurate) understanding of the term 'animal" to exclude humans.

All well and good, but we remind you that this is the legislature that twice failed to pass a law banning bestiality, so one can't have complete faith that "absurdity" can be "avoided" in any event.

That said, to all the people in Florida who made love tonight with the added passion of knowing you might be breaking the law: you're welcome.

The Twittersphere has reacted in exactly the way you might expect:

Josh Chambers
1 of 10

Josh Chambers
logic time: Premise A: Humans are animals. Premise B: Florida banned having sex with any animal. Conclusion: it is illegal to have sex in FL
Total comments: 2958 | Post a Comment
1 of 10
Rate This Slide
Meh
Ha!

  • 1

  • 2

  • 3

  • 4

  • 5

  • 6

  • 7

  • 8

  • 9

  • 10
Top Tweets
loading...
Users who voted on this slide
loading...

[Slideshow by Mandy Jenkins.]

[Hat Tip: Taegan Goddard]

RELATED:
Florida Senate fails basic biology, accidentally outlaws sex. [Southern Fried Science]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Florida Bestiality Law Passes On Third Attempt, Awaits Governor's Signature

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
There may be some terrible news to report out of Florida today, depending on how the state's residents have collectively decided to apply the basic science of biological classification to their lives.
There may be some terrible news to report out of Florida today, depending on how the state's residents have collectively decided to apply the basic science of biological classification to their lives.
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,958
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (84 total)
photo
matt gordon
One nation, under Canada and over Mexico...
10:39 AM on 06/04/2011
It's much more fun to include state senator Larcenia Bullard's outburst of misunderstanding when "animal husbandry" was mentioned. Bless her heart, she asked if "people are taking animals as their husbands". Told that a/h refers to the raising and caring of livestock/animals, she still didn't get it and said "that's why that woman was so upset they shot her monkey" when it went crazy and ate her friend's face. A duly elected member of the Florida state senate, I kid you not.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/2009/03/bestiality-monk.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ladyjonquil
Good thoughts, good words, good deeds
11:20 PM on 05/16/2011
Florida legislators really should stop hanging out at Scott's pill mills.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarkInIrvine
fuzzy-headed knee-jerk liberal and proud of it
09:50 PM on 05/16/2011
"... here's a "a slightly less humorous but technically correct" way of looking at things: ..."

Party pooper - why'dja have to go and spoil all the fun we were having with this?
08:45 PM on 05/16/2011
sponges are animals too, but are they be(a)sts?
07:34 PM on 05/16/2011
ok well corporations are 'persons' so i guess that means we can F*CK CORPORATIONS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarkInIrvine
fuzzy-headed knee-jerk liberal and proud of it
09:51 PM on 05/16/2011
be careful of the sharp edges ...
07:22 AM on 05/17/2011
Only if you're not married to one--in Florida it is illegal for married couples to perform lewd and lascivious acts with each other--thus requiring all married people in Florida to either break the law on a regular (at least I'd hope) basis or become adulterers to stay legal. . .

Unfortunately it is illegal for private individuals to cause any damage to corporate assets or interfere with the day-to-day workings of a corporation, while corporations have been getting away with damaging and interfering with private individuals on a regular basis--so the most likely scenario is, unfortunately, that the corporation is going to f**k YOU and get away with it, consensual or not. Lubricated or not. With a prior and post-coital kiss or not. And probably without a nice dinner and a movie as a preliminary to the corporation bending you over and b*tt-f**king you until your nose (and probably other orifices) bleeds. . .

Distressed,

Henry Rinehart
07:05 PM on 05/16/2011
Hint: That atheists have no valid differentiating characteristic (per Aristotle) from animals is not theists' problem. Our differentiator? "The soul", of course.

What's yours? A -unique- characteristic without reference to any non-material or metaphysical concepts, please. The closest you have is "we wear strips of fabric", which is quite inadequate. Language? Reason? Well, Koko the gorilla has you covered there.

That you can't differentiate yourself, is, unalterably, a devastating show-stopper for your position, not simply from the perspective of theism, but from the entirely of Western philosophy, reason, and logic. That you're ignorant of this fact, or nobody has pointed it out to you, changes nothing. There's literally nothing you can do, other than change your premises, that can prevent your own brain from forming the obligatory inescapable logical implications of your own metaphysical stance.
10:25 AM on 05/17/2011
the idea that man has a soul and animals don't is what scientists call an unfalsifiable proposition - there's no way to prove it or disprove it. It's ill defined and there's no way to test it. It's not like we can ask the animal what it thinks or dreams. btw we used to think animals didn't feel pain.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John C75
A touch of Socialism makes Capitalism thrive.
10:27 PM on 05/19/2011
How would you define a soul? There is an energy that all living being emit that when we die goes away. But that's ALL LIVING things, not just humans. Religion claims that humans are somehow are creators favorite creations. Considering the massively vast universe I think that is a little conceded of man to think that. So how do you define a soul?
07:04 PM on 05/16/2011
This is one example, of many to come. Another one? You cannot validly claim any "rights" beyond what you granted to that hamburger you ate for lunch. That you are temporarily insulated from the necessary conclusions of your own stance is merely a matter of social convention, originally derived from a theistic stance, that you cannot validly do anything other than reject in toto, and hope theists refuse to agree with you on the self-definition you chose, in terms of our practical actions. The implication of your stance is you yourself reject any validity to a claim by yourself to any "rights". Yes, at least some theists have been well aware of this for some time.

Welcome to philosophical accountability. While you're here, note that the Linnaean Taxonomy is, simply, just some guys naming stuff. Nothing was "discovered", reality changed none whatsoever. Simply, one more system of categorization, out of many, was formulated. Convenient as it may be, even with the added authoritative aura of using Latin, nothing happened other than people categorized and named biological forms in a useful way, based on crude distinctions of subjective physical characteristics. It isn't what's "really real", and you can take this model being superseded by Cladistics, at this very moment, as a science-only demonstration of that fact.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LILLYPUTT
11:45 PM on 05/16/2011
Perhaps we do not exist at all,maybe it's a dream.
07:33 AM on 05/17/2011
And please don't forget that this whole issue hinges on the "accepted" legal definition of a Human versus the "accepted" legal definition of an animal. . .

The problem is that ANY legislation that does not SPECIFICALLY differentiate between the two--and this one does not--is open to other interpretations as the "accepted" legal definition changes--and it will. "Accepted" legal definitions change every time an ideologue with an axe to grind garners enough support to force his or her definition on the legal process, usually beginning in a single area and then potentially moving on to larger and larger areas, with the potential of becoming national. Then THAT definition becomes the "accepted" legal definition until some other motivated group forces their opinion on the legal system. . .

Distressed,

Henry Rinehart
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:54 PM on 05/16/2011
FLORIDUH.........embarrassing.
photo
mcmutter
A Groover has to expect a few setbacks .....
01:39 PM on 05/16/2011
please god .... protect us from those crazzy southern evangelicals .....
08:24 AM on 05/17/2011
I'm very sorry, mcmutter, you have reached God's answering service. God is currently unavailable due to a severe case of embarrassment at what people are doing in His name. However, please leave him a message with your contact information at the *beep*, and God will reply to your concern in the order it was received. . .
02:57 AM on 05/16/2011
The Tea Party has taken over the GOP. And there is nothing stupider that Tea Party stupid.
03:13 PM on 05/16/2011
What does that have to do with you poking your pets?
08:04 AM on 05/17/2011
Most people do not poke their pets, their neighbor's pets, or farm animals. Because a very few do, however, the New "Tea Party GOP" felt it was their "Christian" duty to interfere, spending an inordinate amount of time to attempt to pass a law criminalizing the behavior of this minor subset of the people of the state of Florida (they took three tries to pass the botched abortion that they currently have approved) instead of spending that time attempting to provide more jobs for the state, better unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed who cannot find employment, the continuing mortgage crisis or better health care for women and children.

However, I disagree that there is nothing stupider than Tea Party stupid--I personally believe there is nothing worse than ""Christian" Tea Party" stupid, and may even be wrong about that. Every time I articulate that belief something like Sarah Palin comes along to demonstrate that what I had believed to be an abysmal depth of stupid is actually much, much deeper than I had previously credited as possible.

Distressed,

Henry Rinehart
photo
Donald Rappe
Im old! Perhaps my thinking is rigid.
02:40 AM on 05/16/2011
I did not realize bestiality was such a problem in Florida. I wonder if they have Republicans there too? These things seem to go together.
08:41 AM on 05/17/2011
Bestiality is not such a problem in Florida, or wasn't until the "tea party "Republicans"" who were elected in 2010 chose to make it a problem. They did this in spite of their promises to fix the Florida budget, fix the issue of unemployment for the unemployed, fix the ongoing mortgage crisis and women and children's health care. . .

Unfortunately their definition of "fix" appears to be "studiously ignore campaign promises while passing legislation favorable to big corporations and our own salaries as we ignore public care issues as well as passing unnecessary legislation that does not fix anything but our own narrow-minded "christian" outrage at one or more non-issues currently not clogging the state's dockets or affecting more than a statistically insignificant number of Floridians."

While this is not surprising to the statistically significant number of Floridians who knew that electing these individuals would be a public disaster of mega-hurricane-like-proportions, this last bit of legislation is SO egregiously unnecessary that I believe it sets a brand-new standard of ridiculous and unwarranted legislation. Unfortunately, Donald, lately these things most assuredly DO go together, which in my opinion brings up the inevitable question of, "Why, if "Republicans" are this consistently, PUBLICALLY stupid do we need "Republicans" to represent us at all?" Surely we could get similar results by appointing the inmates of any asylum to those offices, and save the state considerable money on their salaries. . .

Distressed,

Henry Rineahart
02:08 AM on 05/16/2011
So if a dog humps my leg, I call the police, and they arrest the dog, and confiscate my pants as evidence.
07:43 AM on 05/17/2011
No. Please do not do this, as the police will NOT arrest the dog, they will arrest YOU. This law criminalizes ANY human being having sexual relations with ANY animal, or at least that is the intent. If the dog humps your leg and ejaculates, that is clear evidence that YOU had sexual relations with your dog, the letter of the law. The law does NOT distinguish between initiator and guilty party, PRESUMING mistakenly that the originator will ALWAYS be the Human, and not allowing for any other interpretation as worded, or any extenuating circumstances except veterinary practices.

Please, for your own protection, purchase a taser and train your dog AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE not to hump your leg, or anyone's leg, in public. Do this BEFORE your dog performs this sexual act in public and some "christian republican" calls the police on you. "Christian republicans" have no sense of humor or irony, but have plenty of time to appear before a judge and swear that you obviously consented to the sexual activity. . .

Distressed,

Henry Rinehart
01:23 AM on 05/16/2011
So, it's ok to kill an animal and eat it, but it is not ok to have sex with it? OK, just wanted to get that straight...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thanks4Watching
Daily dose of cynicism
11:14 PM on 05/15/2011
The funny thing is that social conservatives probably love this idea.
08:16 AM on 05/17/2011
Yes, I would have to agree that they probably do. Social conservative normally equals either "christian" or some other self-styled arbiter or "protector" of public morality, and any law that lets them feel LEGALLY superior to another Human being only fans their ideological flame.

The truly sad thing is that this law criminalizes something that does not need this attention, and does it so poorly that it can be twisted to cover Human-on-Human sexual practices as well. That the "accepted" legal definition excludes this at present is a moot point, as "accepted" legal definitions can be changed by any group sufficiently motivated to ram their own personal bias through the legal system--as demonstrated by the above law, which is nothing but a small group applying their own moral bias to the state of Florida. And applying it poorly.

I weep for our nation, and this state.

Distressed,

Henry Rinehart
photo
fromdnorth
OK I checked my micro-bio (didn't know I had one
10:23 PM on 05/15/2011
the law's wording has basically outlawed sex entirely:

My wife has taken this position for years...