For the most part, my individualistically American conservatism makes most conservatives seem as sissified socialists.  But there is one area within the arena of open discourse in which not even I can go that far to the right.  Morality, particularly relative to sexuality, is a subject that is subject to each and every individual's personal intellect,  emotionality, and physicality.  As long as an individual's personal morality, particularly relative to sexuality, does not cause demonstrable loss and/or harm to another through force and/or fraud, there is no issue of public policy.
     Of all of the established political parties in the country, The Veterans' Party has it right and says it best.  The final paragraph at the bottom of their platform main page states, "Issues concerning a religious or moral nature should not be a political football being tossed around while throwing dispersions at others.  Therefore, once again we say that this issue be discussed at your place of worship and in your home and should not be a part of the political arena."  They used to say it even better:  "If you want religious issues, go to your congregation and discuss it there.  Morals and morality come from your family, not the government.  So, if you want to tell other people how to live their lives, how to think, how to dress, or what they can and cannot do to their bodies, then become a prison warden or a political party in some middle eastern country and rule there."  And the Pansexual Peace Party deserves applause for their simple, straightforward exclamation, "Sex Is Good.  Sex Is Great.  Yeaaaaaah Sex!"
     But there are moralistic myrmidons who would mandate through the police power of government that no one be allowed to perform any sexual activity that does not conform to the constructs of their misinterpretation of millennia old, probably wrongly translated religious texts.  These are the same morons that insist that the Earth is six thousand years old and that it is the center of the universe, staying still while every other celestial body moves around it.  These are mostly misogynistic men with bald pates, paunch bellies and pencil sized penises who have never orgasmed a woman in their pathetic lives.  And it is through legal decision and legislation lewder than any eroticism, that these sorry excuses for Americans would exert whatever manly control possible over women.  Because their physical and emotional ineptitude in dealing with the fairer gender prevents them from achieving the goal sought by all men, that being  being a desired lover, these wonderlover wannabes would use the coercion of the courts and the compulsion of Congress to exert power that they personally can't.  And there are, of course, women of like mind.  Women who have, sadly, never experienced their own sexuality beyond the to be pitied performance of their dirty wifely duties for their horribly horrid husbands, or the impulse to procreate.            
     Let's address the specific non-issues within this realm.  Firstly, there's abortion.  This is the one action in which men without uteri want to most forcefully exert their dominance over women.  They have absolutely no right to literally point a loaded gun at a woman and compel her to birth a baby she doesn't want.  As for their argument that that which is inside her is an independent life deserving of  all rights and recognition of  personhood, it is flawed.  Traditionally, historically, and legally, life has always begun at birth.  That's why there are birth certificates and not conception certificates.  From the moment of fertilization, there is potential for a life, just as there is potential for a natural miscarriage and for a stillborn.  You want to outlaw abortion?  Fine.  First, codify it into law that life begins at conception and at the moment of pregnancy discovery, that that fetus, zygote, whatever, has all the rights and responsibilities of personhood.  That will cause more moral dilemmas than you pea-brained pinheads have even contemplated contemplating.   And this might be a horrible, hateful statement to make,  but  there are  people who should have been terminated pregnancies.
    Next, there's the questions of homosexuality.  Many of you would enjoy  a right to kill the queers, as many contemporary practitioners of the peace loving religion of Islam do.  But you settle for denying them their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No one is more disgusted by the loudmouthed flamers screaming and screeching with the aid of the mindless media than I.  But I recognize that these idiots are not representative of the millions of decent homosexual Americans who live privately and peaceably among us, working daily to earn the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual and asexual Americans.  Say what you want about definition, marriage is nothing but a state sanctioned and recognized religious rite steeped in millennia of dogma.  It is nothing more than a consensual contractual agreement between persons to live together and presumedly have sex together.  And if there is a man (and we know that there is) who would rather put his p***s into another man's rectum rather than into a woman's vagina, and if there is a woman (and we know that there is) who would rather perform cun*****gus than fel**tio, it's none of our damned business, as long as they don't do it in the public square, so to speak.  Just like it's none of our business about anybody else's heterosexual habits or polyamorous or polygynous proclivities.  Too blunt for you?  Tough.  Grow up and get over it.  Just because you were never any good at sex, doesn't give you any right to abridge the rights of others who are, however and with whomever they share it, within the bounds of contractual consent.
      Other personal matters that have been turned into public concerns by declaring 'war' on them are drugs and poverty.  Long before LBJ's Great Society, there were poor people, as there continues to be poor people, as there shall forever be poor people.  In a free market, capitalistic open society, poor people generally choose to be poor, and there is no amount of socialistically governmental give-aways that will ever make them anybody other than poor people.  The same holds true for drug users, abusers, dealers and distributors.  In twenty-first century America, there's not a real dime's worth of difference between cocaine factories and meth labs  and the pharmaceutical manufacturers, as there's not much separating street gangs selling narcotics and licensed medical doctors over-prescribing unproven medications for non-existent conditions.  As long as those people involved in drug making and taking, wholesaling and retailing don't cause others loss or harm through force or fraud, there is no issue of criminality. or civil liability.  While drugs might be a mitigating circumstance relative to other committed crimes, they are, of and by themselves, not something that should be subject to criminal prosecutions.  After all, early America prospered on the cash crops of tobacco and hemp and the very civilization of man was built around beer.
      As for gambling, prostitution, and other 'vice' crimes, the virtuous are free to try to pry the practitioners of vice away from their avocations, so that they may live more puritanic lives.  However, conversion techniques may not include the use of force or fraud or the police power of government.