So we've chosen one set of subjective values to build this country on, and mostly they seem to have worked.

We have things to work on to make it better, sure. But before we throw out the bathwater it might be worthwhile to remove the baby.

Are laws that enact Christian (or Buddhist or atheist come to that) values ipso facto coercion? They can be, if they're sufficiently direct.

That is, we can't enact the text of the 10 commmandments or the Quran in law, but we can outlaw murder or theft.

We can't and shouldn't outlaw homosexual behavior among consenting adults because one faith or another finds homosexuality sinful. But we can establish incentives to behave in ways consistent with those values without crossing any lines.

That's democracy, not a violation of the idea of separation of church and state.

And certainly, a person can be doing their duty by fighting apparent social injustice. Thoreau wrote about this kind of patriotism. But he also said that it was the citizens duty not only to point out perceived wrong, but to accept the judgement of his fellows in the end. I know, it's in the later parts of Civil Disobedience that hardly anyone reads, but it's part of his ideas nonetheless.

Fighting for the right of a gay man or lesbian to pursue their happiness in a consensual sexual relationship with another man or woman is a fight I'd join, believe it or not.

Fighting for the right of 3% of the population to set social and legal terms for everyone else is one I simply can't in good conscience.

It still seems to me you're trying to create laboratory conditions for things that simply won't work in the lab.

In the end nearly everything about culture is subjective.

You can parse it back to ensuring social order or utility or other concepts, but even those notions are subjective. Why is utility desirable? Because some folks think it to be. Why liberty, come to that.

All human beings live in an artificial societal condition.

And the path of sanity is to accept the prevalent conditions of our particular culture and agitate for the small changes we feel would improve the thing.

But to tear the whole thing down because you find it inconvenient is the act of a toddler, not an adult.

Blaming society at large for the stubborn unwillingness in a self selecting minority to adapt themselves to it is a bit silly, frankly.

You seem to posit a society where all the rules and subtleties of social interaction arise from some practical purpose rigorously lab tested to be effective at this or that objective. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whatever world that may occur in, it ain't this one.