Question: If your elected officials fail basic taxonomy, promote anti-science curriculum, and consistently attempt to undermine the fundamental underpinning of all biology, what happens when they start trying to legislate from this flawed view of reality?
The answer is this poorly-worded miasma of a law recently passed in Florida, which presumably was designed to prevent bestiality and promote animal welfare, but which has actually made it illegal, effective October 1, 2011, for anyone to have sex in Florida.
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.
I have constructed this helpful little graphic for the Florida Legislature to examine:
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.”
[Readers may be interested in a slightly less humorous but technically correct interpretation of the new law. ~Ed.]
Like this post? Check out some of our more substantive analyses of peer reviewed research, our recent review of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill that didn’t happen, and the role of the local guy in management processes.
Site moving too slow? Check out our friends at Deep Sea News for you daily dose of marine science awesome.
Oh my God, You mean my husband and I have to call the vet now?! ROFLMAO
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
4
well Kendrick Meek should be getting a lot of action then… I’m pretty sure he’s a mineral of some kind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
11
You know, every once in a while you guys come up with something that just stops traffic….this is one of them.
Re-blogged and sent to the major media.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
3
“animal” is defined elsewhere with chapter 828 to exclude humans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
17
There is more than one law in the USA that needs to be changed. How old is that law and has it ever been tested?
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
828.02 Definitions.–In this chapter, and in every law of the state relating to or in any way affecting animals, the word “animal” shall be held to include every living dumb creature; the words “torture,” “torment,” and “cruelty” shall be held to include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unnecessary or unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused, except when done in the interest of medical science, permitted, or allowed to continue when there is reasonable remedy or relief; and the words “owner” and “person” shall be held to include corporations, and the knowledge and acts of agents and employees of corporations in regard to animals transported, owned, employed by or in the custody of a corporation, shall be held to be the knowledge and act of such corporation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Does every living dumb creature include human beings who are unable to speak? Babies? Fetuses? How about tomatos and cucumbers?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
6
Here’s a link to the aforementioned definition: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0828/Sections/0828.02.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
“the word “animal” shall be held to include every living dumb creature ,,, ”
There are some pretty dumb humans as well, so I dispute the point that this definition categorically excludes humans.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
4
So, um, what has been going on in Florida that made them think this law was necessary?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
It may have something to do with the literacy rate?
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
“Science Geeks fail basic public policy, overlook ‘definitions’ legislation”
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
20
That’s a regular joke with my vet, we take our dog in and she says, so what’s wrong with ur husband?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Gawker has sensibly recognized that this may be problematic.
http://gawker.com/5800990/did-florida-accidentally-ban-sex
“Finally, we’ve found an excuse to fine or jail a large chunk of Florida.” -lol
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
30
So the definition of “animal” is every living creature that is unable to speak? Bring on the parrot love!
Do chihuahuas count as mute? They can yip pretty loudly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
@Poliholic – the ‘definitions’ legislation has its own problem. Defining animal as “living dumb creature” means either we can’t have sex with teabaggers, or we can have sex with parrots.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
14
Because F.S. 828.02 defines “animal” as to “every living dumb creature,” this is not exactly the correct interpretation.
Rather, it appears that the Florida Legislature — whom I will readily acknowledge to be an ignorant yokel posse — has actually outlawed sex with animals lacking the power of speech. This presumably runs afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, but it also may open up loopholes for sex with parrots.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
So this law doesn’t apply to anything that can make noise? Look up the deffinition of “dumb”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Donna I think you are ok.
“providing that the act does not apply to certain husbandry”
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Scientists fail basic statutory interpretation.
Well, at least until the editor posted the second link — kudos on the less funny but more accurate correction.
Like or Dislike:
5 
10
Florida failed to ban sex with plants. Someone really should do something about those sicko tree-fuckers!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
2
So they define “dumb” somewhere else?
Is it defined as less intelligent thereby subjecting most Republicans as breaking this law?
Or if it is the inability to speak then what about those humans who cannot?
What us scientist really find annoying is when humans are not considered to be animals.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
Well if they are stupid enough to vote in right wing nutjobs then it is probably for the best if they ban sex:-)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
8
What the heck does “undermine the fundamental unpinning of all biology” mean?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
@Captain – I been trying to get people to wise up to them plant licking table fornicators for years now!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
[Readers' may be interested in a slightly less humorous but technically correct interpretation of the new law. ~Ed.]
AARGH. Never mind the jokes about the FL legislature (and that is a pretty poorly drafted statute) you science dudes had better import an English major to proofread the site.
The plural of “reader” is “readers”. An apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural, only to indicate possession.
Ok, now I can laugh like crazy–can you imagine what the drafting conference was like for that one?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
1
“An apostrophe is never used to indicate a plural, only to indicate possession.”
We cant use it for contractions anymore? just dont seem fair.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
4
Ummm…? Screw the parrots…, (sorry, couldn’t resist) what about apes trained in sign language?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
19
Definition #2 of animal: “any such living thing other than a human being”
Well that helps explain the ASPCA trying so hard to outlaw lawn mowing.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
At least I can still get my rocks off, until they outlaw petrosexuals.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
This of course brings to mind the famous limerick popularized by Norman Douglas:
There was a young man of Peru,
Who was hard up for something to do.
So he took out his carrot,
And buggared his parrot,
And sent the results to the Zoo.
Douglas’s commentary on this poem in his volume “Some Limericks” is well worth reading.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
27
Thumbs up for stating the obvious!
Double thumbs up for thinking your the only one who sees it.
Triple thumbs up for missing the point entirely.
C-c-c-combo breaker! You guys are killing me. From here on, everyone take a shot whenever someone tries to explain the difference between people and animal while ignoring the link in the post that actually explains the law.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
27
My kingdom (Animalia) for a horse.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Well, at least we still have melons.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
you do know that Florida, Maryland, Wisconsin and NUMEROUS other states have similar taxonomically incorrect language, right?
This whole post is really based on ignorance of how the law actually works. Yes, yes, they are technically incorrect, but you are technically incorrect to single out Florida or ascribe to them unique ignorance. The fact is regardless of what scientists say, humans do separate themselves from other animals. Or more precisely, sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Thus when a statute says that a person cannot have sex with an animal, everyone knows what it means.
Look for a post tomorrow on this, at Patterico’s Pontifications.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
20
“the word “animal” shall be held to include every living dumb creature…”
SO, anyone who is mute is not allowed to have sex because they cannot speak…that population IS referred to as ‘dumb’…sounds discriminatory to me.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
My horse “Clip-Clop” is on Prozac over this you know.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Not really. ‘Animal’ means ‘air-breathing’, hence the name, see. You put an ‘s’ on the end of a descriptor, you’ve got a nonword. ‘Sexual’ means ‘separate’, et cetera.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
“the word “animal” shall be held to include every living dumb creature ,,, ”
Logically that doesn’t exclude humans, if I say the word “vegetable” shall be held to include tomatoes that doesn’t exclude broccoli for example.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Just goes to show what kind of retarded creature man is that they even need a law reminding them not to screw a creature of another species…and we are supposed to be the most intelligent of all the animals…
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
Speaking of “dumb creatures”, I guess the Florida legislature just outlawed sex with themselves.
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
828.27 1a: “Animal” means any living dumb creature
It never defines “dumb”; so, even if the court assumes the “stupid” meaning is out, it still seems to state pretty clearly that deaf people who can’t speak are not human. Won’t be the first time.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Upon first reading this, I didn’t think the problem was with the definition of “animal”, I thought the problem with the wording involved this line:
prohibiting knowing sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal.
It sounds like it’s talking about two separate things, such as prohibiting playing baseball or flying kites. For clarification, I guess they should have put prohibiting knowing sexual conduct with an animal or sexual contact with an animal.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
The wording of the statute is obvious to the “Born Again”. They have a special code for sensitive topics. For example, the word “unnatural” is used to describe anything female with hair on it, or anything other than missionary position sex between a man and his wife.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Zombies eat brains, so this will keep the zombies out of Florida, or Tallahassee at the least!
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
So, if you use a natural sponge in the shower. You’d better film yourself to prove you don’t knowingly wash your no-no region. I bet they’d pile necrophilia charges on you too if they got the chance.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
Is this America? I thought unlike any other country in the world, that everyone was free to pursue happiness. If someone would prefer to have sex with an animal, dumb or not, isn’t their right to do so? What gives the government the right to regulate peoples happiness…I don’t know why someone would want to have sex with an “animal” but I don’t understand many peoples actions. But no one has the right to dictate…your God, maybe if you wish it…but not other people. sex is a private, personal and instinctual act. Please! Government…clean up the useless laws we have already before creating new ones.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Lame. This clearly does NOT outlaw sex between humans. Time wasted.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
It has animal defined as any “dumb” creature.
So when they get caught banging the intern they can send the intern to jail and take the heat off of themselves.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I realize bestiality adovocates love to say Florida outlawed sex with other humans, but the term “bestiality” means humans having sex with subhuman animals, AND Chapter 828 specifically deals with crimes involving animals (subhuman). Nice try sex perverts. And why is it just about every single CHILD PORN arrest also has bestiality in their collection of filth. I pray all of you sex perverts get superbug gonorrhea and your organs rot out. And yes there is a superbug gonorrhea out there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Poorly worded law is still poorly worded.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Bestiality is more common than you think. Gonorrhea and chlamydia originated from cows; HIV from chimps and Herp B (which causes deadly meningitis in humans) from monkeys. Kinsey reports reveal 17% of farm workers had sex with the animals. Though they say HIV came from bush meat, I tend to doubt that because bush meat was around for centuries. People also keep chimps for pets, and if you knew anything about zoology, chimpanzees become highly, highly sexual once matured, and I find it disturbing how anybody would want that for a pet walking around with erections. That’s how I believe HIV got introduced to the human population. (Chimpanzee male organ has spines on it too which can cause tearing of the rectum). If you GOOGLE “bestiality”, beastforum, zootube, etc a million bestiality web sites pop up. beastforum even has a “personals” column where zoophiles meet and have sex orgies with their pets or farm animals, in every State including Florida. Aside from moral issues, if you google child porn arrest, just about in every case bestiality porn is included in their collection. (If a person is able to have sex with a small animal, they can do the same with children). CONNECT THE DOTS! If a person is willing to have sex with a small animal, children are next. Subhuman animals carry many UNKNOWN viruses (harmless to the animal, but can be deadly to humans) which if it passes to a single human will soon become a world wide epidemic. Bestiality SHOULD be banned if not for moral issues, but to help protect public health. Please sign/share my Petition to ban bestiality as a Federal law (there are no Federal laws against bestiality!) Sign here and share please: http://www.change.org/petitions/petition-federal-definition-of-bestiality-as-obscene-and-federal-crime
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Luke thomas spends an uncomfortable amount of time thinking about beastility.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
PS-many science degrees don’t impress me, and ANYBODY advocating bestiality-quite disturbing.
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/cdc-executive-arrested-for-1198092.html
“A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official was arrested Sunday and charged with two counts of child molestation and bestiality for sexual acts involving a 6-year-old boy…” “Lindsey, 44, serves as the deputy director for the Laboratory Science Policy and Practice Program Office at the CDC, according to her biography on the agency’s website. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
luke thomas thinks laughing at a poorly worded law is the same as promoting beastiality.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0