Well, at least we've pared it down to the real, fundamental disagreement.
I might point out that "sordid" is an emotionally-laden term, and that in general it seems you're starting from "feels" and looking for logical/moral structures to justify it after the fact, but I guess that's kind of the point: I'm comfortable removing myself from the analysis and approaching it as objectively as I can approximate, whereas you are comfortable arguing that your own preferences self-justify their enforcement through law (at least, should you obtain the "consent" of some arbitrary and generally fictional "majority").
I suppose all that sounded quite judgmental, but I am conceding that we've reached a deep impasse which reason seems unequipped to bridge. Either I am right or you are justified, and if there is a god or gods, they'll sort it out. Something like that, right?
Some needlessly pejorative terms notwithstanding, you are correct. At the end of the day, I think there is conduct that is so offensive, to so many in most communities, that those communities ought to be free to prohibit that conduct unless that conduct has been explicitly recognized in our constitutions as being fundamental and protected against majority infringement.
I suppose I could try to make some case that some conduct is a violation of the NAP or some other entirely rationally based system of morality based on how it degrades quality of life for decent people. But I'd simply be trying to wrap reason around what I freely admit is an emotionally laden belief.
Just as I trust the collective conscience of the community, as expressed through a randomly selected, impartial jury to say that a law is unjust or a specific circumstance warrants acquittal even though the law itself is generally acceptable, I trust the collective conscience of the community, as expressed through duly elected legislators--and tempered by judges applying original intent readings of our constitutions (which we rarely get), to impose legal sanctions on certain conduct that some would call "victimless" crimes.
Now, I'm very much a federalist. If Vegas, New Orleans, or your particular community wants to take a very libertarian or even libertine view of what it will accept, I don't see that as my or the federal government's concern. But I believe my community has a proper power to place some limits especially on public conduct that shocks the sensibilities of the community.
Lacking any claimed, objective basis, this position is open to attack with slippery slope, reducto ad absurdum, and other such fallacies and arguments. To these, my response is that experience has shown that our system of government with division of powers does a reasonable job of protecting fundamental rights, while also permitting majorities to set local bounds on public conduct.
Being a federalist, I believe good fences make good neighbors, and I support the right to vote with our feet. Those who want the freedom to copulate or get stoned in public, engage in cock or dog fighting, who want to see (or are willing to tolerate) houses of prostitution next door to their schools, should seek out like-minded persons and live in communities that reflect those values. Those who want the freedom to take their families to the park without seeing such conduct, who believe animals should not abused merely for recreation, etc, should be free to do likewise. And even those statists who care very much about what color everyone's front door is painted, should also be free to form their own communities, limited, like the others, by enumerated, fundamental rights.
If you can ever muster the necessary super-majority to get public copulation and drug use listed as an enumerated, fundamental right, I'll have to live with it. Until then, I'll be simple and honest. Any rights theory or moral system that results in the public having to tolerate the most offensive of human conduct in public is not a theory or system to which I can subscribe.
Put another way, no matter how good your logic sounds, if it tells me that water must run up hill, I'm going to reject it in favor of another system, however imperfect it may appear, that acknowledges that water runs downhill and that society has the proper power to set some limits on public conduct.
All the best.
Charles
). Frankly, I suspect most folks agree at a "mechanical" level. But since the law doesn't have much to say about it – and barring, you know, actual aggression on the dogs' part, we aren't going to shoot them – the vast majority of us learn to live with that sort of thing without comment, concern, or in fact letting it affect us at all. 
