Sex in Public Should Be Legalised

In this round, I'll be talking about how a law that permits public sex is undemocratic to the public, but first, allow me to conduct a few rebuttals. REBUTTALSR1) "Sex is beautiful. It is a way of life. "PRO has made no correlation between something being a "way of life" and something that is fit for public exhibition. When we say that a certain act or behaviour is a way of life, we are only implying that said behaviour or act is one that is practiced by many people for various reasons or is recognised as an essentiality in our quotidian lifestyles. By no means does "way of life" mean that it can be or should be performed in the company of others. R2) "Sex is a natural desire"Once again, there exists no explanation in part of PRO to bridge the gap between a natural desire and the decency of said desire to be exercised in public or to be legalised. It is also a natural desire for homophobes to punch homosexuals and for the desperately poor to rob a bank, but does that give grounds for public display or legalisation? R3) "Hey, we pee in public toilets, right? "PRO's attempt at drawing a parallel with the analogy of peeing in public has failed in a number of ways. Urination, similar to eating and sleeping, is a bodily need and a necessity that cannot be denied or ignored. This is recognised by the general public and thus urinating in facilities such as public toilets is accepted. By contrast, sex, as PRO describes it him/herself, is a "desire" rather than something that has to be done. Thus, there exists no sexual equivalent for the public toilet, and no reason to legalise public sex either. PRO must also not forget that public toilets are very much regulated environments, with features such as cubicles and barriers between urinals, which contradicts PRO's own utopian scenario where sex in public is truly unrestricted, uncensored and done out in the open. SUBSTANTIVESI shall now proceed to my deliver the first substantive of my case. P1) Sex is stigmatisedSex is pleasurable, but it is undeniably a guilty pleasure. The stigma attached to sex dictates that it is indecent and foul on various levels, such as talking about sex and engaging in intercourse before marriage. Said stigma is aptly represented by the controversiality of pornography, prostitution and sex education. Existing laws that act against public sex deem it illegal on the grounds of gross indecency, indecent exposure, and public lewdness among other titles [1], a good reflection of what gives rise to the stigma surrounding sex and pertaining topics. Sex is also a touchy subject in private environments, evidenced by parents' unwillingness to speak to their children about "the birds and the bees", and the overall 'awkward' nature as PRO mentions, among other examples. If sex is something that is sensitive to handle even in a private environment, how well received will a law that allows public sex be by the public? Laws are drafted and enforced by the government, and principally speaking, it is upon the government to act in the interest of the public. Why is it, then, justified for the government to implement a law that goes against the perceptions and conscience of many on the topic of sex? Doing so will only create yet another source of public dissatisfaction towards the government, and brings no new benefits sufficient enough to outweigh the backlashes (that is, unless PRO justifies benefits brought about by this law further down the bench). Please note that this substantive, nor this debate in broader terms, does not concern the legitimacy of public sex and whether it is moral to conduct sex in public by nature. This substantive/debate concerns the plausibiliy of legalising public sex which is why I have incorporated public opinion on sex. What is generally regarded to be moral may not necessarily be genuinely righteous, but the law has to cater to what the public thinks instead of what is "truly correct". CONCLUSIONTo conclude, I have addressed all claims made by PRO uphold the legal validity of public sex, and have proven that such a law plays no role in changing the public's view on sex (i. e. making it less awkward) as PRO wants to see happen, but will instead undermine public interest. Thank you and I look forward to PRO's response.