You're twisting the meaning of the passage, which was prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. The so-called right to privacy does not begin or end at someone's house. The court didn't say that the sodomy law could not be enforced only inside someones home, it cannot be enforced anywhere. If 2 homos engage in a sex act in a public park, there is no expectation of privacy, yet this ruling would protect them from the sodomy charge.
The prohibition is a limit on the legal mode of infringement of the right. The right regards privacy, a search is infringement on that right.
The court erred when it nullified the TX law on privacy grounds, because the law didn't infringe on privacy, it forbade an act unrelated to the matter of privacy. The court also erred in the '70s when it negated state abortion laws on privacy grounds. That line of reasoning also would negate all laws, as long as the criminal activity was a private matter for the criminals. The court was acting to install their vision, nothing else.
The reason the right to privacy exists as an enumerated right is that the founders valued it. Their privacy was important and they realized, that w/o that enumeration and limit placed on it's infringement, the whim of the rulers to search at will would reign. The idea that the people should open up their lives to demonstrate to the govm't that they had nothing to hide would quickly end up the norm of operation and the establishment of a stubborn and oppressive tyranny.