The Supreme Court has ruled that that is unconstitutional, so now what? Actually, I was not so bothered by legislatures that chose to not make it illegal, thinking like other immoral acts that society openly disapproves of but are not necessarily legislated against. But homosexuality seems to be unique in that its legal status, especially as a Constitutionally protected status, greatly affects many other legal issues and government acts. As a protected class, speaking against them is quickly becoming equated with racism and bigotry. And what about adoption, marriage, and family? It is simply impossible to restrict this issue to two consenting adults in their own bedroom. Even the Supreme Court immediately applied it to a 14 year-old. So the "adult" part was dead from the start. Heck, homosexual activists are most concerned with minors. Check out all their efforts in the schools, or just go to the GLSEN website.
Now that the constitution demands we not legislate against them, government (mostly through the legislating courts) will likely act and legislate against opposition to them (again, look to racism as the predictor of things to come). This means those who hold to traditional moral, biologically normal sexual standards are silenced or shamed, and pushed out of the public square with the full force of government. The structure of society is basically the same -- there is no more freedom and tolerance really -- but the values have been reversed. Who is accepted and who is rejected has reversed.
The whole thing is really utterly ridiculous. But here we are. We can't even distinguish between male and female, let alone right and wrong. We must equate sexual unions that cannot even "unite" without the aid of a strap-on sex organ substitute with the clearly natural complementary union of male and female. It is so ridiculous we should all be laughing if the consequences were not so serious.
The whole thing is really utterly ridiculous. But here we are. We can't even distinguish between male and female, let alone right and wrong. We must equate sexual unions that cannot even "unite" without the aid of a strap-on sex organ substitute with the clearly natural complementary union of male and female. It is so ridiculous we should all be laughing if the consequences were not so serious.
I don't think it is that exaggerated but yes, the Supreme Court in Lawrence ended the effort to make the sexual *act* illegal.
I live in Utah. There are a lot of homosexuals here but they are not doing the kind of open and depraved acts in public that I read about in other states. My opinion is that this is a states' issue and that if a state condones what I would not be confortable with - that I probably wouldn't want to live in that state.