No, with respect, they're not. Without getting more graphic than this thread deserves they're quite a bit worse if those acts take place in public.
The real issue is that what Senator Craig was doing was disgusting and perverted.
Really? What did he actually do? That's the problem here - he may have been (and almost certainly was) soliciting an anonymous homosexual tryst, but all he actually did was to make some signals that he was willing. As I stated, it is easy to legislate against the act, but expression of willingness to take part in it is not, I suggest, within the state's rights to prohibit lest the state decide to prohibit other speech as well. There are exceptions - sedition comes to mind - but when did we last see a prosecution, much less a conviction, for even that?
Being "disgusting and perverted" is not, in my opinion, a valid ground for law. It is certainly valid ground for expressing disapproval and shunning the individual, which is what I am fairly certain would happen in the next election should Craig be foolish enough to run.
Bill, you don't need to worry about my sensibilities. I'm board-certified in Infectious Diseases and have dabbled (and on occasion more than dabbled) in Public Health for thirty years.
Your opinion is common, but not, I think, correct.
Sex with strangers, sodomy, multiple partners, exposure to excrement, serial viral and bacterial infections are every bit as bad in the privacy of one's bedroom as they are in the toilets at MSP. The risk to third parties from letting it all hang out is vastly overstated, especially now that the Mexicans and Haitians who clean up after these guys use bleach and wear gloves.
The "public health" case for re-instituting antihomosexual laws and codes is strong enough, but it's equally strong at home as it is in the airport - and it isn't going to happen in either place.