If you look to the supreme court or the constitution or any governmental body to define your rights, then you have surrendered part of those rights to the government. The government has a lot of power, but they do not have the authority to take away my rights. That is where we differ and probably always will.
Now if some guy wants to put his penis in the rectum of another guy or if two adult women enjoy have oral sex with each other, they have the right to do so. I may not do that myself, but it is their right. I may think it's immoral, but it is their right. I may get us all together to vote to put them in jail for doing it, but it is still their right. No one can take that right away. They can use force, but the right remains.
So look to the court or whomsoever for your rights, but don't tell me that's what I do.
If the Supremes find such a "right" this term they will have to overrule existing case law and yes, this right will be brand spanking new. I'm not the one with facts wrong. Nothing in the Constitution grants a "human right to sexual activity," nor is there any Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution to grant such a right.
It is crystal clear the people who wrote the Declaration and the Constitution thought there was no such right because they saw no Constitutional problem with sodomy laws. You have believed in this "right" for over 35 years. So is that when the Constitution was amended to add this new right, in 1968?
Guarenteed by what? You keep dodging the debate why the 9th supercedes the 10th amendment. What does the clause “certain rights” mean to you? The 9th amendment only protects those right’s “certain rights” that are not addressed by legislative law, that was Madison’s intent and NOTHING about the Liberaltarian concept of "force" is ever mentioned. Why do you think LSD and Ecstasy were legal when they first came out?