No, smarty pants; they are essentially public health values. Unfortunately, any public health values involving homosexual behavior have been rendered politically incorrect by their well-funded activism, putting public health in jeopardy.
I would additionally like to point out to you that laws prohibiting murder and stealing also reflect religious values explicitly expressed in the Ten Commandments. So, by your convoluted logic, they must be "oppressive" laws, as well.
Indeed, what laws on conduct do not reflect beliefs, or are only widely-held secular beliefs, which like the universe, have no Divine origin, but created themselves, be allowed? And if laws against sodomy be disallowed as having a religion (read Christian) basis, then where do you stop? Why not marriage between man and goats? Once you throw out the default transcendent moral basis for laws in the West, you end up with the ever-morphing morality of State-sanctioned secularism, and social engineering we though we fought against in resisting Communism.
How enlightened the Supreme Court must have been to finally figure out 150 years later that the 1st Amendment meant the institution of secularism, and the expulsion of the Bible! No doubt this was needed, as when the Engel v. Vitale case was decided] an estimated 75% of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings (Colliers 1961 Yearbook, p. 224).
Even the Unitarian “Father of the Common School,” Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 — August 02, 1859) rightly understood that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit officially favoring the general, common Christian faith and its morality, but that it forbade official sanction of one particular sect by distinctively favoring its doctrinal distinctions, stating that “it may not be easy theoretically, to draw the line between those views of religious truth and of Christian faith which is common to all, and may, therefore, with propriety be inculcated in schools, and those which, being peculiar to individual sects, are therefore by law excluded; still it is believed that no practical difficulty occurs in the conduct of our schools in this regard.” (Stephen V. Monsma, J. Christopher Soper, “The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies”, The Unites States, cp. 2, p. 21)
Considered second to Mann in his schooling endeavor was Henry Barnard, who was raised in a deeply religious family, and who saw his involvement in education “as part of the providence of God”. Like the majority of Americans, he believed that democracy and education went together in “the cause of truth—the cause of justice — the cause of liberty— the cause of patriotism — the cause of religion.” (Jeynes, p. 154)
How did he get that idea the Court must have asked, but what a great advancement in morality resulted because of their manifest wisdom, as now even schools of higher learning tend to double as brothels, over 90% of the faculty are liberal, while grade inflation helps spell relief, and student loans will be forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. (proposal) Thus ensuring a balanced representation of hardworking conservatives and liberals in government.
But as long as you are for small government and fiscal conservatism, and a strong sort of foreign policy, you qualify as a genuine conservative, even if promoting the moral opposite, and can imagine a society in which 25% of the young people, esp, in college (and thus government) have an STD, and lawlessness abounds, will enable small government and a balanced budget, while a disciplined military with co-ed subs (patriarchalism is due to religion) enforces your foreign policy.
Just digressing on the dismaying.