[Luis Gonzalez]

"In your opinion, does it mean there is a right to engage in sex in public?"

I'll ask again, phrase it different for you this time.

Why would a decision recognizing the right to private behavior, relate to the laws that govern public behavior?

Why do you continually shift the debate away from the central point with some absurd proposition?

[Sabertooth]

Why would a decision recognizing the right to private behavior, relate to the laws that govern public behavior?

Because the decision, and your arguments, imply a right to such behavior. On what basis would it be limited to private acts?

Why do you continually shift the debate away from the central point with some absurd proposition?

I've shifted nothing, as the central point itself is an absurd proposition: that there is an unalienable right to sodomy. The Founders didn't believe it, nor did the Supreme Court in 1986.

So, now that you've put forth that premise, you have landed squarely in the realm of the absurd, and it's fair to inquire as to your basis for discriminating between absurdities.

In the wake of today's SCOTUS decision, on what basis can any governmental entity regulate any sexual behavior between consenting adults?