So we're going to have to split this into a few parts, and to be clear I am not proposing that anarchism immediately leads to utopia.

anti-gay laws. Ok so what is a law? In our societies a law usually ultimately means that a piece of paper has some words on it, and if your actions are contrary to these words then men armed with guns and torture implements will hunt you down and hurt you until your actions comply with the words on the paper.

This is entirely incompatible with anarchism. Fundamental to anarchism is that coercive force will only be used when there is a pressing and immediate need to do so. If someone can hurt you for not complying with their rules you don't have anarchism.

Ok though, you live somewhere were for some reason people are mean to you, don't invite you to events, and otherwise bully you because you are gay. You have choices, you can stay and try to change their minds or you can leave. Leaving is easier, as you have no rents or mortgages, no passports, nothing that can be withheld from you to force you to stay in pain. Is this ideal? No, but I challenge you to come up with a system of living that will be ideal in all circumstances. At least under an anarchic system of organisation leaving is always a choice.

On someone always disagreeing: why do you think this will be the case? Is this your experience when you make decisions with more than one person? When you go out to eat is someone always adamant the choice is wrong? When you assign roles in a project is someone always unhappily complying only under threat of violence? It is not my experience that consensus is difficult to achieve except on the thorniest of issues. Under our current systems consensus is almost never achieved, any increase would be a meaningful improvement.