Now, prostitution in legal in Nevada, and while I've never been there, I'm pretty sure there are no cat houses next to the local elementary school. Again, this is where local control governs, and probably does it well.
My entire point is my separating my own value system from that of society's. I just want to separate yours and Santorum's too.
Society can't declare sodomy a right. But neither can the state declare it unlawful. There is no "compelling interest." Just because something is a sin, doesn't mean it's a crime.
I do know what it is like to live in an area where drug use and prostitution was rampant, where there were needles and pipes outside the schools, where you couldn't stroll in the local park without running into prostitutes.
A lot of this was cut down by vigilant community and police action. One can walk through the park now, and those entrepreneurial groups of young people congregated on the corner have all but disappeared.
You think society would be better off if nothing could actually be done about such things. I think society would be worse off, I've SEEN what can happen to communities where morality is lax.
What you propose would make vice more prevalent, not less prevalent. It is not conservative at all to say that a society with more crackheads, more dope addicts, and rampant immorality would be better.
You are trying to impose your values system on society. Your values system posits that the only kinds of harm are those that are physical or harm property. This is not a value that society currently holds, and it is not a value that this society has EVER held. Thus, you are advocating a change in societal values. That is the opposite of conservatism.