If he said there is not right to privacy in the Constitution (I haven't read the complete remarks yet), then I have to agree with him. That "right" was created by the Supreme Court out of whole cloth in Griswold v. Connecticut, emanating from the "penumbras" of the Constitution. This was the primary foundation for the Roe v. Wade decision a few years later.
The 4th Amendment prevents the government from coming in your house, reading your mail, etc., without just cause. To that extent, there is a right to privacy. But there is no right to engage in any particular activity, sexual or not, in the privacy of your own home, just because that activity occurs among "consenting adults".
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
I disagree with Santorum, I don't want his bedroom laws.