[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.

[AppyPappy]

Face it Hank, there is NO reason for a law to prevent consenting adults from sex acts behind closed doors.

The law ISN'T preventing anyone from doing anything behind closed doors. That's the point. It's used to stop crimes

Let's draw a parallel. Let's say it is against the law for a minor to possess cigarettes. If Doris asks her 14 year-old son to bring her a pack of Winstons, is he breaking the law? Technically, yes. Should we get rid of the law because of it? No.

You are freaking out over something that isn't happening. You should worry about the nany stuff that IS happening.

[B-Chan]

Face it Hank, there is NO reason for a law to prevent consenting adults from sex acts behind closed doors.

What about incest? Is that okay?

[weegee]

Change the law in the legislature, not in the courts.