[Jorge]

Personally, I do believe in the state legislatures having authority to establish quarantine laws and behavior laws when the issue is individual or public health.
It is a good thing to outlaw prostitution. There's really no significant difference between that and outlawing male to male and female to female sex.

Only problem is that "female to female sex" has a lower incidence of AIDS and other STDs than most other forms of sexual conduct.

So that blows the argument that the legislature has the right to outlaw homosexuality for public health risks.

Let's face it. Americans are not going to put up with a Govt that decides it is going to become the sex police and regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

[xzins]

Average age of death for those who practice female-to-female sex is 48.

Something is terribly wrong.

However, you miss the point. I didn't say the legislature MUST control these things. I said the legislature SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION of controlling these things WHEN they become a danger.

Just because two adults are behind closed doors doesn't mean there aren't potential problems. Again, prostitution is an excellent example.

[First Amendment]

Let's face it. Americans are not going to put up with a Govt that decides it is going to become the sex police and regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

I can't understand why you insist that Santorum's statement - and the many Americans who agree with him - want to have police on a "seach and destroy" mission against behavior which is practiced in secrecy. This is a straw man argument. The whole purpose of anti-sodomy laws is to keep such behavior out of the mainstream, out of the public view. That way fewer people will be seduced into it, and if such sodomy practitioners try their skills in, say, public bathrooms they can then be arrested. Why don't you see this? Why are you so attracted to the idea of sodomy and/or same sex acts being protected?