Chesterton's Fence is a valuable argument, but repeating citing it to me is a barely veiled accusation that I haven't thought things through (and if Chesterton's Fence isn't what your second link is intended to argue, then I am simply confused).

See my edit.

Moreover, the particular moral positions I'm asserting (e.g. non-consensual touching is not generally allowed in a functioning society have been supported by the overwhelming majority of moral thinkers for longer than you and I have been alive.

I suppose this is technically true for certain values of "non-consensual", specifically you have to assume there is a presumption of implicit consent to certain types of touching in many situations. In some cases this definition is extremely stretched. In any case there is a lot of room to slip one way or the other on what kind of touching one is presumed to have consented to.