There pretty much always the same thing. The law is about what you 'ought' do and what you 'ought not' do. Where the law is silent on what you 'ought not' do there is tacit approval. 'Oughts' and 'ought nots' are value-decisions. Thus they are moral decisions. The idea that the law and morality can be divorced is only a doctrine that can be held by libertarians who want society to be forced to ignore the costs of perversion.
I disagree. Lying is definitely immoral, but few would advocate a law outlawing it.
In other words, that which is not prohibited is mandatory.
I don't need the state to decide for me whether or not to have oral sex. Only a mindless automaton does. In fact, when the thought crosses my mind, the very last thing that matters to me is what the government thinks about it.
Do you really think a single person who wouldn't have had oral or anal sex when it was illegal will change their behavior because of this ruling?