"Your cohorts have made it clear that homosexual sex performed in private is Constitutional, and in particular that anti-sodomy laws (of the sort passed in all the framers' home states) are unconstitutional."
I wasn't aware that I had any cohorts.
"Does your interpretation of the ninth amendment support or oppose this viewpoint?"
Oppose of course. Anyone who would think otherwise would have to be a judicial activist.
"What about prostitution? If those can be illegalized, what judicial standard distinguishes those behaviors from the ones that can be?"
There is no constitutional basis to prevent states from enacting anti-prostitution laws, including the right of privacy. Next?
Waitaminnit--it sounds like you understand the 14th amendment correctly, which changes everything. SCOTUS interpretation is that the 14th amendment imposes the bill of rights on the states, then you are saying the FEDS can't "violate our privacy," except where it falls within the enumerated powers, but that the STATES can do so. For example, a federal anti-prostitution law would be unconstitutional, but a state anti-prostitution law would be constitutional.
If that's your position, then we essentially agree--and you don't believe there's a "right to privacy" after all. I.e., you believe that there is at the federal level but that there is not at the state level.