The reason I even brought it up was to demonstrate that a desire to have government deal with "sin" is NOT the recipe for tyranny, as opined by jimt.
Dealing with sin is not the primary reason behind regulation of strip clubs. Keep in mind, strip clubs are heavily regulated in the God-fearing, bible-reading town of Los Angeles but quite prolific (and incredibly risque) in the bible-belt city of Atlanta.
Rather, strip clubs are targeted because of so-called "secondary effects" that they cause, such as drunk driving, prostitution, drunk and disorderly behavior etc.
The "secondary effects" argument may or may not be a good one when it comes to strip clubs. However, when it comes to people engaging in sinful behavior in the privacy of their own homes (whether watching pornography, engaging in homosexual sex, swinging etc.), the fear of secondary effects does not seem to be applicable.
Try selling it on the basis that it's "sin", and you'll lose almost every time.
These restrictions are sold on the basis of the banned activities being "criminal", or "reducing property values", or "seedy", or "dangerous to children". The farthest they typically ever go is "immoral", and not very often. This is a view that can be held without regard to "sin".
Having government deal with "sin" IS a recipe for tyranny, because the presumption is the government has the backing of God. It doesn't. Does God write and approve zoning ordinances, or fallible men and women ?
And me. The point is that in order to combat "sin" a government would need tyrannical powers. We believe that exercise of those powers is more damaging than any sin could be in itself.