Substantively, James illustrates the harm principle by invoking shocking descriptions of U.S. prohibitions on consensual sexual activity. This edges into hilarity when he pulls out a stuffed sheep toy and confesses to partaking of "the love that dare not bleat its name."
I wonder, though, how many of the laws that James cite remain valid after Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003). Therein, the court held that a Texas statute criminalizing homosexual anal sex violated the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The Court said, in relevant part,
The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. . . . The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. . . . The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
Id. at 578.
Legal commentators have debated how far Lawrence reaches beyond state laws prohibiting private consensual sexual acts. I don't think we can assume that the case invalidates laws against bestiality or, to cite a closer case that James now has raised, necrophilia. I don't think anyone can plausibly claim, however, that Lawrence fails to strike down laws criminalizing private oral or anal sex between consenting adults, be they the same sex or not.