[AppyPappy]

No. They don't CARE when it is happening unless it causes problems. The nanny isn't IN your bedroom but you still complain about it. Quit looking for a nanny that isn't there. Look for the nanny that IS there.

[A Navy Vet]

What the hell are you talking about? These kind of invasive laws are indeed nanny laws that reach into our bedrooms. Your "public sex" defense is non-starter since there are laws specifically addressing certain public behaviors, which I agree with. Face it Hank, there is NO reason for a law to prevent consenting adults from sex acts behind closed doors. I can't believe you are defending this with such a weak arguement, unless you are attempting to camoflage your real complaint, which is of a religous nature. If that's the case, then say it loud and proud.

[monday]

"The nanny isn't IN your bedroom but you still complain about it. Quit looking for a nanny that isn't there."

The nanny most certainly was in the bedroom for the people this article is talking about. Your logic so full of holes I guess there really isn't any point in debating this with you.

[AntiGuv]

No. They don't CARE when it is happening unless it causes problems.

Your entire line of argument is quite frivolous & specious in my view. If the concern is preventing public sex from causing problems, then:

a) The law would specify public disturbance.

b) The law would not specify same-sex acts.

Since you allege that this law purports to regulate public sex acts, is Texas law then indifferent to straights engaged in public sodomitical indiscretions?