Florida Creationism, Droopy Drawers, & Bestiality

Strictly speaking, this isn’t about The Controversy between evolution and creationism. But it involves some names in the Florida Senate that are familiar to our readers, and it shows what these people are thinking about when they’re not trying to jam Noah’s Ark down everyone’s throat.

In the Bradenton Herald of Bradenton, Florida we read Fla. Senate: No to droopy drawers, sex with animals. That paper doesn’t like people posting their precious content, so we’ll just tell you what they report.

With virtually no debate, the state Senate voted to pass two bills. We’ll take them one at a time. The first is the work of Gary Siplin who, according to Wikipedia, “is the first convicted felon to serve in the Florida Legislature, and sponsored legislation that would restore voting rights to himself and other convicted felons.” He has also been a dependable ally of our old creationist friend, Buffoon Award Winner — Ronda Storms.

We’ve written about Siplin’s legislative work before. In It Starts with Christmas we discussed his resolution to make “Merry Christmas” the State of Florida’s official greeting for December 25. You can track its progress here: SR 320: Merry Christmas. Nothing’s happened with it yet. Siplin and his buddy, Ronda Storms, have also introduced legislation authorizing religious license plates — see Ronda Storms Update (28 Apr ’09).

Siplin’s latest effort is SB 228: Code of Student Conduct, which mandates that:

Each district school board shall adopt a dress code policy that prohibits a student, while on the grounds of a public school during the regular school day, from wearing clothing that exposes underwear or body parts in an indecent or vulgar manner or that disrupts the orderly learning environment. [Emphasis supplied.]

When your Curmudgeon was in school we didn’t need a state law for that. Had we dropped trou on school grounds, it would have been catastrophic for us. Have school principals become totally feckless, which makes such a law necessary, or is Seplin a legislator with far too much time on his hands? Hey, it’s better for him to focus on kids’ mooning and flashing their underwear than to be mandating creationism in science class.

Okay, that’s the “Droopy Drawers” part of our title. What about the “Bestiality” bill? That one is the work of Senator Nan H. Rich. (She and Siplin are both Democrats, by the way.) Nan’s bill is SB 344: Animal Cruelty. You really need to read it for yourself. Here’s the text of SB 344 . It says that no person can “knowingly engage in” or “cause, aid, or abet another person to engage in any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal.” And it provides a lovingly-crafted, anatomically precise definition of the prohibited conduct, to wit:

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.

Sexual contact” means any contact, however slight, between the mouth, sex organ, or anus of a person and the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the person into the sex organ or anus of an animal, or any penetration of the sex organ or anus of the person into the mouth of the animal, for the purpose of sexual gratification or sexual arousal of the person.

But the bill has an exception. It doesn’t apply to “accepted animal husbandry practices, conformation judging practices, or accepted veterinary medical practices.” Your Curmudgeon has spotted another loophole, which you may want to keep in mind. Why? Get serious — you’re a Darwinist, aren’t you? The Florida legislature knows what’s going on.

Okay, pay attention: As written, the bill only prohibits “knowingly” engaging in such behavior. So you can always say you didn’t know what you were doing. It’s worth a try.

We know, you’re wondering how the bestiality bill is progressing. Well, it’s sailing through the Senate and there’s a related bill in the House: CS/HB 125: Animal Cruelty. Also, the Bradenton Herald tells us that Ronda Storms (there’s the creationism connection) says: “I don’t even want to speculate why” there would be opposition to the bestiality bill.

We think Ronda does want to speculate about such things — but that’s our own speculation. Anyway, it’s comforting to see that the lawmakers in Florida are hard at work, tending to the urgent business of the people.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “Florida Creationism, Droopy Drawers, & Bestiality

  1. I am new to this blog, and I wonder whether this blog is run by one or many bloggers.

  2. Last time I checked, humans are animals, too.

  3. Charley Horse says: “Last time I checked, humans are animals, too.”

    So you plan to use the Incest Defense? Well, that might be successful if the judge is a creationist.

  4. No, as I read the law as posted, it says “no contact with
    animals”. Seems the law doesn’t consider humans animals.
    Maybe there is a description for animals that you haven’t
    posted that is in the proposed law. Otherwise, ALL sexual
    contact with ALL animals would be a violation of the
    proposed law. Including humans.

  5. When your Curmudgeon was in school we didn’t need a state law for that. Had we dropped trou on school grounds, it would have been catastrophic for us

    You AND any onlookers…

    Hypothetically I suppose Ronda could attach a creationist rider to the bestiality bill late in the legislative process, making it (the rider) very difficult to kill. But that idea is probably just my paranoia. This looks more like legislators fixing a non-problem to look good. ‘Look Floridians! We did a great job rearranging the deck chairs!’

  6. Have I missed something? Has there been an epidemic of bestiality in the state since I left a couple of years ago? Are the horses sporting knowing grins these days? WTF?

    The Florida legislature needs adult supervision…urgently.

  7. Gabriel Hanna

    A few years ago in Washington State there were some gentlemen molesting other people’s horses. One of the men died. It was then discovered that Washington had no law against bestiality.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4158101.html

    Since then one has been adopted, on animal cruelty grounds.

    The rush to ban Four Lokos was far more stupid than any of these laws; and that was adopted by the national government.

  8. Ed asks:

    Has there been an epidemic of bestiality in the state since I left a couple of years ago?

    Haven’t you heard? If you teach kids they’re related to animals, then they’ll behave like animals.

  9. According to the definition, it appears that “gerbilling” would be OK.

    I’m not going to tell you what “gerbilling” is nor give you a link to Wikipedia which does a masterful job of explaining the process.

  10. Looks like Gabriel beat me to the Washington State story. I recall from the outfall of that, many states do not have bestiality laws. So while awkward to introduce out of the blue (and embarrassing for whoever introduces it), it’s better than the alternative we had here.

  11. Gabriel Hanna says:

    A few years ago in Washington State there were some gentlemen molesting other people’s horses.

    I see this as a simple matter of property law. If the molesters were uninvited, then they were committing some kind of trespass, for which we already have laws. If the owner of the animals permitted the activity, then it’s not the state’s concern. Legislating against such behavior with private property is insane. (I’m assuming the animals were unharmed; I don’t want animal torture to be legal.) What will the legislature do if someone gets caught having sex with a fence post? Do we need to outlaw that too?

  12. The horse – man incident in Washington was great fun to us Oregonians, providing yet another reason to laugh at our neighbors. Past that, I agree with the sensous curmudgeon, the state has no right interfering in cases like this, allowing exceptions for acts that cause injury to another (animal) or involve others’ property. Twisted a bit maybe, but not my business. And, natural selection is involved here, too, although not as successfully as one might hope; the man that uh, loved the horse died, and I guess if one is stupid enough to take a horse internally, then maybe his gene set does need to be removed from the population. But he left kids…

  13. MD2020 says: “The horse – man incident in Washington was great fun to us.”

    Oh yeah!
    /quote-mining mode

  14. Ed says: “Has there been an epidemic of bestiality in the state since I left a couple of years ago?”

    There are so many possibilities here it boggles the mind.
    /quote-mining mode

  15. Gabriel Hanna

    I understand the libertarian arguments against criminalizing bestiality, but the fact is that banning animal cruelty, which SC and MD2020 support, is just as much an imposition of morality. After all, as long as no human is hurt and no one else’ property damaged, why can’t I torture a horse, or force my pit bull or rooster to engage in blood sports? It neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket, etc.

    Animal cruelty is icky enough to you that you want to ban it, but bestiality isn’t. Okay, but you have no leg to stand on in criticizing those who reverse the priority.

  16. Gabriel Hanna says:

    After all, as long as no human is hurt and no one else’ property damaged, why can’t I torture a horse, or force my pit bull or rooster to engage in blood sports? It neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket, etc.

    Yes, that’s the argument, and I agree that animals have no rights. Because I want to be consistent, I’ve wrestled with the “crime” of animal cruelty for a long time. I’m not sure I’ve developed a credible justification for banning and punishing animal cruelty, but I’ve been using an analogy to the military crime of “conduct unbecoming an officer” — which makes sense — and telling myself that puppy torture is “conduct unbecoming a human.” I’m not entirely convinced, but it’s all I’ve got.

  17. retiredsciguy

    Curmy asks, “What will the legislature do if someone gets caught having sex with a fence post? Do we need to outlaw that too?”

    You noticed that they wrote the bill to outlaw sexual contact with just animals. I wonder if Ronda Storms had anything to do with the bill’s exclusion of zucchini.

  18. Taking this any further gets way off topic, but the “animals have no rights” bothers me, irrespective of whether they are someone’s property or not. We’re all animals, so what is really meant is “only humans have rights”. I am real uncomfortable drawing a hard line between species; it is a continuim . . . primates are the best obvious example: we are still learning about their intelluctual capabilities, that old evolution thing enters into it here too. Which specific mutation makes us different enough to claim “rights” at the expense of other creatures (ignoring the food chain argument). Sorry, way off topic, I have expressed my discomfort, I’ll quit now.

  19. One possible reason for laws against animal cruelty is that sociopaths often get their start abusing animals. If such acts are illegal, that can create a police record that could be useful in catching the monsters later.

    As for the drooping drawers, I’ve taught from time to time in high schools, and my initial reaction is to support the bill. I realize that it’s a sad commentary on our society that we have to deal with such matters, but the threat of police action may be the only thing that students will pay attention to, since they often have no shame. Still, it is a small matter to spend the legislature’s time on.

  20. Gabriel Hanna

    @Greg Camp: So should cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana be criminalized on the “gateway drug” theory? Because that’s what you’ve argued for sociopathy.

    You guys are all such rationalists. You don’t HAVE to have a reason to think that abusing animals is repulsive and should be illegal. You can’t reduce morality to a set of axioms derived from pure reason, so don’t bother. So here we are trying to rationalize some “scientific” reason for criminalizing animal cruelty. Just criminalize it because most people in this country find it self-evidently bad, like incest between consenting adults.

    Just bear in mind that other people are not necessarily idiots because they have different ideas about what’s icky enough to ban. Doesn’t mean you need to agree with or defend them, but try to remember that much of your own morality is based on what is repulsive to you and you may not have any argument for it.

  21. So the bestiality law prohibits me from having sex with any animal, even if said animal is human ? So by that measure my girlfriend is an animal (which she is, as am I), and we can’t have «fun»… Does masturbation count (lol) ? Glad I’m not living there… I have to stop seeing CSI Miami, it makes me believe it’s a beautiful melting pot of sex and fun, like Rio during the Carnaval 🙂

  22. And about the school law, back when I was in school, only forbidden thing was smoking and drugs, to be indecent was a loose definition, and as a young boy with hormones firing like photon torpedoes, I didn’t mind, not one bit … Now they want to control everything… It’s like a Catholic school or something, wardrobe, books, movies, music, even thought they want to control. As an almost 40y old male I say «let them have their fun».

  23. Doc Bill, you had me look into wikipedia… I’m sick…