Freedom of sexuality is a human right.

"Forcing someone else to engage in a sexual act is immoral and falls under the range of acts that the government has every right to prevent and prosecute." For one, I don't know if it's the government's job to dictate morality. For two, sexual assault should have no greater significance than any other property right violation. Protection from assault of any form is a fine thing. But there is no logical reason for me to give up my sexual freedoms in order to enjoy protection from assault. Like any freedom, freedom of sexuality ends where another's begins. Obviously I'm not attempting to justify rape, and I dislike the implication that I was. "Engaging in sexual conduct in public view is essentially forcing a level of participation on the observers." False logic, else all forms of protest or public display of any sort should be illegal. I hate football but I have to tolerate crowds of fans and idiots in costume. I hate KKK, yet I have to tolerate rallies. I hate the shame of democracy yet I have to tolerate photo ops and parades and signs. Everywhere we look there are things occurring some of us disapprove of. The nature of a free public is the requirement to tolerate that in exchange for the knowledge that others would have to tolerate us. Sex is only different because of our puritanical roots and corp/gov/church support of mass sexual tension. "Sex is not a need." The Quakers would disagree. Sex is as much a need as food or air. Just because the individual can theoretically physically survive without it does not mean it is no less a need. Besides as humans we have higher needs. If I were to keep you strapped to a bed but kept alive, would you still claim your needs were being met? I would go so far as to claim that the stress of being deprived of all higher needs would radically shorten your life span. "No one has died from a lack of sex." Prove it, since you've made the claim. I think I could show sexual repression as an instrumental factor in many deaths. "While some are technically illegal, they are not practically illegal." So it doesn't matter what the law says so long as we can get away with it? How disgusting. I suppose the black should not have fought for their civil liberties just because they could get away with using the white only fountain at times. The enforceability of a law has no impact on its ethical standing. "…most of those nations have very few limitations on sexual behavior." Your definition of sexual behavior leaves a lot to be desired. Sexual code fills volumes anywhere you go. I think you radically underestimate the importance of sex in our daily lives. Take for example dress code, bathrooms, slander, sexual harassment, marriage laws and related code, even disturbing the peace, or code related to "lewd" conduct. Our sexual conduct is EXTREMELY limited. The insanity I speak of is precisely the type of cognitive blindness you've just exhibited. We have less sexual freedom now both practically and legally in some places than we have ever had since the industrial revolution. A study of the history of prostitution and serial sex crime alone makes that quite clear. The insanity I speak of is walked around in a maze of sexual codes both social and legal and being trained to ignore them. "I would argue that it should be illegal to have sex with a two year old." Should it also be illegal to think there are CIA men in your attic waiting to plant bugs in your teeth? What should be a health code issue only becomes a crime because the state has such a vested interest in sexual control of its populace. Pedophilia is criminal insanity, not pure criminality. Criminality is breaking social rules for profit, such as dealing drugs, or robbing a bank. Stabbing your mother because the dog told you to or because you have a brain lesion or deformity that causes you to see her as a walking nightmare is not pure criminality. Further, while sex with a child of such a young ago may be reprehensible to you and the exceedingly vast majority of others for valid genetic and socioethical reasons, you need to realize that making it a state issue beyond the protection of the child's rights brings up an important question about that same protection applied to the child's parents. A ‘child' in our society has no real rights. The only rights they have are general state protection of future worker rights. Which is why it's legally required to send children to school, not because they care about the child's knowledge level, but merely its indoctrination level. Again, playing the kid card is just as underhanded as playing the rape card, you're stalling; we both know I'm not advocating child rape. But I'm pleased you resort to such underhanded measures, it means you have nothing legitimate to offer and thus I've crushed your point. "The question of where that boundary exists is a legal definition and therefore must decided by government. We can argue over exactly what that age or criteria is, but it must be defined in the law." So you need a government to validate every ethical position you arrive at? What if the government decided that children were property and we and they could do whatever they please to them until they turn 30? Would you then simply accept the position because it came from authority? Of course not, so don't expect me to. Children only need government protection because government has created a situation ripe for their abuse. If the government stayed out of sexual affairs entirely sex crime in general would vanish. Go look up the history of serial rape and sexually motivated serial murder. Sex crime is relatively new, and is a direct result of intense sexual regulation. And as the regulation becomes stricter, the proclivity for sex crime advances proportionally, just like drug law yields drug abuse, and poverty yields theft. The government creates problems so that they can sell us solutions in exchange for our freedom. Would you submit to a law saying that you could only have sex once a year and only in missionary position? On what grounds would you refuse to submit to such a law?