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.
That is of the utmost importance. The property rights of privately owned land are the basis of the libertarian nature of the rules established by the owner.
If it is publicly owned land, there are no property rights to enforce your personal preferences as to what occurs on that land. The only rules that would apply there would be from the governing body, and that body by definition cannot initiate force or fraud and still be classified as libertarian.
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. I stated that there was a pre-existing taboo (social rule) on sodomy. It was well established
A 'preexisting taboo' is most certainly not even close to a binding contract upon any individual. You do know what a contract is, don't you?
By living in that society, they agree to abide by it.
You are describing democracy, not libertarianism. A libertarian society has no legitimate power under to enforce any law through initiation of force, no matter what 'society' wants. If it does, its not libertarian.
They initiated fraud. There was a pre-existing, informal, covenantal agreement forbidding homosexuality.
There is no such thing as a pre-existing agreement. That is a meaningless, fictitious term What does pre-existing mean, exactly? It existed before it existed? An agreement either exists or it doesn't.
If they have made no agreement, then no agreement exists.
I can understand why you're arguing specifics. You've pretty much lost the broad point.
Yes, why bother with the minor details like what actually is a libertarian society, rather than the democracy you use in your example. Silly me.
Obviously, a homosexual has not chosen to abide by any such "agreement", and it thus does not exist.