I looked at the dissent to see if there was a compelling reason for the government to override bedroom privacy. What I found was that Scalia concentrated not on providing that compelling reason, but rather spent his time rightfully skewering the liberal Justices for their reversals of their own rationals as they listed in cases such as Roe v Wade, among others.
Scalia is clearly setting them up to use their own justifications in the majority opinion today as rationales for overturning their sacred cows such as Roe v Wade after the Court gets new Justices.
Which is all fine and well, but Scalia didn't list why the government should have a compelling interest to override your bedroom privacy. Had he listed such a reason, I would have had to have read the majority opinion to see if they had a better argument against said reason.
But alas, there was no such reason in the dissent. Scalia was citing technical reasons for his dissent by listing the clearly contradictory rationales used by the liberals in earlier cases compared to today.