Sex is now illegal in Florida!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by helgaleena, May 17, 2011.

  1. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
    Florida Senate fails basic biology, accidentally outlaws sex. « Southern Fried Science

    Florida Senate fails basic biology, accidentally outlaws sex.


    By Southern Fried Scientist, on May 11th, 2011
    [​IMG]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.


    Please be very careful all you LPSGers in FL.... :confused:
     
  2. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wow, this is really, REALLY sad! I guess in their brilliant stroke of knowledge and complete comprehension failure of Science & Biology, they forgot that the human race is also an "animal".

    Here's a link to the actual bill and how it was worded in the Senate - http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0344/BillText/Filed/PDF

    I will, however, open my bedroom doors for hot, hunky Floridian men after October 1st if they want to continue having sex after the law is enacted. I won't list names, but three of you know who you are. :wink:
     
  3. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Well, we can't let TX have every crazy-ass story out there, can we?
     
  4. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Ready though I am to ridicule the scientific ignorance of lawmakers in the South, this story does not seem to me to fit the bill. To insist that the term "animal" includes human beings is as pedantic and artificial as insisting that the term "vegetable" includes strawberries. Both points are true under the strictest interpretation of the terms, whereby natural solid bodies are divided into animal, vegetable, and mineral. But in common speech, nobody understands the term "animal" to include human beings any more than anyone understands "vegetable" to include fruits. It is a matter of context, and no one could plausibly interpret "animal" in the context of this law to mean, say, "sentient being." So I think this is not just a cheap shot but a poorly aimed one.

    Edited to add: I am in agreement with what it says on this page: "The Florida legislature has done some stupid things recently, but this is not one of them."
     
  5. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's twice I've agreed with Calboner in one day. What's happening?:smile:
     
  6. helgaleena

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,663
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Wisconsin USA
    You may have sex with any biological entity with a demonstrable IQ perhaps?

    Someone PM'd me about his wife the orangutan and their plans for Disneyworld next year. :tongue:
     
  7. B_Hickboy

    B_Hickboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,730
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    That twinge in your intestines

    Why "the South"? Florida doesn't represent "the South" any more than I do. Your prejudices are showing.
     
  8. luka82

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    5,182
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    somewhere
    Sex should be illegal everywhere in the world!
    :)
     
  9. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    I guess that's one way to add excitement to it. :cool:
     
  10. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    The pertinent phrase was "lawmakers in the South." Are you denying that Florida lawmakers fit that description?
     
  11. D_Kiki_Mia_Ahz

    D_Kiki_Mia_Ahz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont think you have made your way to Miami, there are definitely some humans you can classify as animals, and they deserve to be in a cage (jail). :biggrin1:

    And Florida is never considered part of the "South", South is usually AL, SC, GA, etc..
     
  12. B_Hickboy

    B_Hickboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,730
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    That twinge in your intestines
    No, but I'm denying that the entire South is as stupid as these people are.

    Are you saying that the entire South is just like the lawmakers in Florida? All the lawmakers in Florida are in the South, but not all the lawmakers in the South are in Florida.

    Why say one thing when you mean another, unless you mean to express a prejudice against the wider group?
     
  13. luka82

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    5,182
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    somewhere
    :alien:
    Woof!
     
  14. Pendlum

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,151
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Verified:
    Photo
    The way I read it, he meant lawmakers in the south, not all of the south. People who makes laws are a pretty small group.
     
  15. B_Hickboy

    B_Hickboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,730
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    That twinge in your intestines
    Meh. At best, it was an imprecise choice of words. At worst, it reflects a casual bigotry.

    BTW, I think he can speak for himself.
     
    #15 B_Hickboy, May 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 18, 2011
  16. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Here's what I wrote: "Ready though I am to ridicule the scientific ignorance of lawmakers in the South, this story does not seem to me to fit the bill." This implies that I am ready to ridicule the scientific ignorance of lawmakers in the South, and that I count members of the Florida state legislature among lawmakers in the South. My inclusion of the phrase "in the South" implies that I believe lawmakers in the South more likely to display scientific ignorance than lawmakers in the US in general. I do believe this, and I believe that the historical record will confirm that, of legislative efforts that have exhibited scientific ignorance, the Southern states have been the source of a disproportionate share.

    Nothing else that you impute to me has any basis in what I wrote.
     
  17. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    I love you Cal, really. This post, however, is rife with misconceptions. Long gone are the days when natural solid bodies have been assigned into only three highly exclusionary categories. Bacteria are not vegetables, animals, or minerals. A true botanical pedant (such as myself) would NEVER classify a strawberry as a vegetable. A strawberry plant is a vegetable, however the strawberry itself is an aggregate accessory fruit.

    Humans ARE animals. Common usage or not, excluding humans from animals is just wrong. We are mammals. Mammals are chordates. Chordates are animals. This is not pedantry. It's simple fact. There is no logical way to separate humans from animals.

    Additionally, the law is not concerned with common usage. For example, in common usage, a "wrap" is a type of sandwich. Then there's the club sandwich, which is of course a sandwich. But in Massachusetts, a sandwich has two thin slices of bread, with a thin layer of "filling" between them, so sayeth the law. Wraps and clubs are not sandwiches in Massachusetts. You see, the law itself IS a pedantic entity. To argue that calling humans animals is a pedantic pursuit may be true, by your definition (which evades all logic I can think of), but the law itself is always interpreted through the highly pedantic art of definition. Since this law did not bother to define animal, nor did it bother to define those with whom sex with animals is banned, it has left open the door for a much broader interpretation than intended.

    In other words, the law should have been worded similar to this: "... rendering illegal all sexual activities between humans and non-human animals, with the exception of approved animal husbandry techniques, veterinary practices, etcetera..."

    It is not at all implausible to think that there will come a day when two gay men will be arrested for having sex, and this law will be used to defend their arrest. They are, after all, animals.
     
    #17 joyboytoy79, May 18, 2011
    Last edited: May 18, 2011
  18. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Interesting foreshadowing. Considering all of the recent, shrouded attacks on civil liberties by many GOP lawmakers (and their negative stance on gay issues), this may be something to pay close attention to.
     
  19. Cuddler

    Cuddler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Shouldn't Lawrence v Texas keep that from happening?
     
  20. joyboytoy79

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,557
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    DC-ish
    Not really. Should such a case appear, it would likely be appealed to the SCOTUS, who may or may not uphold the law. Remember, Lawrence v Texas overturned a previous ruling by the SCOTUS that a GA law against sodomy was indeed constitutional. Precedent is not really an issue in the Supreme Court. Each case allows them to weigh in on an issue anew, without regard to previous SCOTUS rulings.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted