[William McKinley]

Let me give you an example. For decades, Georgia had a sodomy law on the books that made oral sex illegal.

Somehow, Georgia survived for generations without the state becoming Big Brother.

I think it was a silly, unenforceable law, and it wasn't enforced, except in rare occasions-- when the act was committed in public, for example. I think that law did more harm than good. But the nightmare situation you described as being what would happen, didn't.

I get the sense that you would like to see no laws regarding sexual activity to be on the books, which is fine as an opinion. However, that is about as far out of the mainstream as you were trying to suggest Santorum was in his comments.

As for what I think should be and shouldn't be legal, see post 196.

[Laurie S]

If these laws are silly and unenforceable, why have them on the books at all?

"I get the sense that you would like to see no laws regarding sexual activity to be on the books.."

I never said that. I just don't think there should be a sex law on the books that only applies to a certain part of the population. The laws should be applied equally. If gay people can't commit type X sex act then heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to commit type X sex act either. (although there's no way to enforce it other than barging into one's bedroom which is exactly what started this court case) That's all I'm saying.

Santorum seems to be saying that gays can't commit type X sex act, but hetero's can. Not only that, but if you allow gays to commit type X sex act then that means that all hell will break loose and anyone can commit any type of sex act they want. It's an insane argument on Santorums part.