I know of no historical reference that even hints that their definition of liberty included the "personal freedom" to be buggered by your boyfriend. I think that it is safe to say that they were as opposed to pure freedom as they were to pure democracy.
To me, if you have to enumerate every possible human activity that is allowed and call it 'liberty,' then that is not what you have got. Liberty, to me, is anything I wish to do that does no harm to another. It is up to government, as restrained by the Constitution, to make the case for infringing on any activity.
Think of the Bill of Rights as being tent poles. They keep the tarpaulin of government power from falling down and smothering the people. The tarp is held up away from us, and we are free to live our lives without government interference. There is no need to enumerate every reason for keeping the tarp up. Only the conditions under which it may descend.