1. Who owns the land? You never say. If the land in your small society is privately owned, those who own it can tell gays or anyone else to leave for any reason, or no reason at all.
If the gays own some of the land in the city with no pre-existing contractual restrictions against their behavior, they have a property right to stay on their land. Under libertarianism, they cannot be forced to leave their own property for actions that do not initiate force or fraud.
2. And by doing so they insult the informal, voluntary rule-structure of society.
Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part.
3. A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions. Exiling them by force is initiation of force, hence your theoretical society was never libertarian to begin with, and its failure cannot be attributed to libertarianism.
Here is the exception: Libertarians could form a private community with voluntary rules, such as a homeowners association. If these gays previously agreed by contract with whomever they bought their land to refrain from their behavior, and they break that contract, they have committed fraud, and can be ejected from the community. Note that this is not initiation of force or fraud, it is contract enforcement, which is very libertarian.
It sounds like you have a lot to learn about libertarianism before you refute it. OWK's post #1077 covers free association in libertarian societies. I suggest you re-read it.
Completely irrelevant. Under the libertarian construction of things, if people voluntarily agree to organize society in any way they wish, that's kosher with libertarians. Doesn't matter if the land is communally owned or privately owned. The small society has to agree, voluntarily, on social organization. However they do that is irrelevant to the argument, because whichever way they do it, it's voluntary. Perfect libertarianism.
Are you asserting that the gay men are breaking a rule they consented to? This is a profound breakdown of logic on your part
I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established. By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.
A libertarian society cannot have laws that initiate force or fraud, no matter if everyone there agrees to them. The gay people in your example never initiated force or fraud in their actions.
Sure they did. They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality. They broke it.
I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.
LOL! Is anybody supposed to believe that HV read that, or anything else that conflicts with its prejudices, in the first place?