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.Technically, human beings are animals. So, on it's face that bit up there kind of implies that they did. But of course, that's not the entire statute.
“Sexual conduct” means any touching or fondling by a person, either directly or through clothing, of the sex organs or anus of an animal or any transfer or transmission of semen by the person upon any part of the animal for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal of the person. [my emphasis]And that bit implies that the person who wrote the law sees people as separate from animals. Whether or not you agree with her (and yes, it's a her. You kind of knew it had to be, didn't you?) it's rather clear her intent was to make illegal the act of a human having sex with an animal. Specifically, the news reports I've read mention a case of a goat and another with a horse, so she was thinking animal as in the 4-legged variety and not the kind that walks on two feet. Like Newt Gingrich.
So while the Twitterverse and blogosphere went a little overboard with the idea that Florida had banned sex and after October 1st Florida residents would have to confer with a vet, animal husbandry professional or conformation judge (which is a fancy term for those folks who judge dogs and such for shows) before having consensual sex, it just ain't so.
It does however raise another question.
The very fact that so many would assume that the author of the bill didn't believe humans were animals got me to thinking (always a shaky proposition). Why do so many people, especially those of the more, shall we say, conservative bent, think that way? Which of course made me think of those Christians who think the only way to read the Bible is literally. Thus, "God created man in his image" means that God looks like us and not say, the family dog.
Which I find patently absurd.
Aibhne happened to be sitting in my lap while my husband and I discussed this silly Florida law and meandered on over to Bible literalists. I pointed to her and said, that's an image of God right there. To which he replied, does that mean God has tongue spots?
Yes. Yes, it does.