[Antoninus]

There is a difference between disapproving of homosexual acts and considering them sinful, and enshrining that disapproval into criminal law.

Nonsense. Putting this disapproaval into law is a statement that our society will not tolerate such behavior. Even if the law is not enforced regularly, it still puts a public stigma on the activity. And well we should have such laws for sodomy -- and for oral sex as far as I'm concerned -- even if it's not enforced with regularity.

What the Supreme Court has done is open Pandora's Box which will emit all manner of filth and evil. Rick Santorum was absolutely right.... Just watch.

[sinkspur]

Putting this disapproaval into law is a statement that our society will not tolerate such behavior.

But our society DOES tolerate it, since the laws are not enforced.

Even if the law is not enforced regularly, it still puts a public stigma on the activity.

No it doesn't. There's as much, or more, homosexual sex as there's always been.

And well we should have such laws for sodomy -- and for oral sex as far as I'm concerned -- even if it's not enforced with regularity.

Unenforced laws, as Clarence Thomas put it, are a waste of law enforcement attention, and are "silly."

[spunkets]

"our society will not tolerate such behavior."

Spokesman for the society?

"Even if the law is not enforced regularly, it still puts a public stigma on the activity."

It only energizes the tyrants amongst us.

" And well we should have such laws for sodomy -- and for oral sex as far as I'm concerned -- even if it's not enforced with regularity.

That allows the tyrants to crack down on whoever they damn well please. How is that the rule of law. Seems more like the rule of tyrants and terrorists. Art though a mullah?