Problem with that, by "living with it" it also means that the Supreme Court, a unelected body, has taken away their votes on a issue, alot of people who are on the fence on Gay Marriage may not be very happy about that. Hell look at how Obama came out about it last year, saying it was a state issue, having the Supreme Court issue it takes it away from being a state issue.
I'd agree with this if I thought something like gay marriage was something that should be voted on in the first place.
Yet here is the thing, with Roe vs Wade, women looking for an abortion sometimes have their life at risk and need one right away, others cannot afford to go to another state to seek one within the 3 to 5 month time frame. With Gay Marriage there is no time limit, if a Gay Couple truly wishes to get married, they have every right to go live in another state that recognizes their marriage.
Sure, they have every right. Is it exactly feasible for everyone though? We can't just assume that every gay couple out there is financially well off enough to take off to another state and get married. You can't just ask people to leave behind their careers and their families to go start from scratch in another state that has gay marriage.
1. on your dirst point, that is not true. People put different value on different things. How do you explain people being pro-abortion and against gay marriage. What you are doing is just making an overbroad generalization.
I'm really not. Murder is generally seen as one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. This is self evident. People are usually more upset by the taking of another persons life than they are about candy being stolen from a super market. That is not "overbroad generalization." It's just true. Gay marriage and abortion are both controversial, and people have strong opinions about both. Abortion is more polarizing than gay marriage because the moral dillema at hand, or rather the percieved moral dillema, is the murder of infants. Say what you will or live in whatever fantasy land that you feel like, but babies being killed usually evokes stronger emotions in people than the sanctity of marriage.
2. Your second point is also. Inaccurate for many reasons. First, california was just used as an example for liberal states. There are only seven states (soon to be nine) that have legalized gay marriage. There are only thirteen states here. Go ahead and add alaska for fourteen. That means you have 29 states that have no legislation in place to legalize gay marriage that aren't strictly republican. I am not debating that they are more conservative than their counterparts. However saying that the majority of gay hate crimes (untrue) occur in the south is just biased. Did you know 2/3rds of hate crimes in New york were against gays in 2011. Did you know whyoming was ranked number 45 in most tolerant states for 2012 followed by penssyvanila? (With mississippi being ranked 50th obviously.) Do you know that Tennessee and Georgia put in bills for same sex unions and harsher charges for discrimination against homosexuals in 2012. Are they behind as the other 29 states in the north and west (which only five of them put forth legislation). Think about it.
Again, I don't why you think you're making any sort of point by providing a few mere counter examples. California is an interesting case because there was huge organizations in play that were all vying for votes, like the Mormon church. It's still but one example. It doesn't completely destroy the trend that states with more liberal demographics usually are more prone to legalizing gay marriage than states that have more conservative demographics. So California was a wild card? Big deal. You have no point.
As for your misplaced defense of the Southern states, you should do some reading.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009...south-spur-calls-for-better-state-and-federal
The South ranks far behind in legislation. Eight out of 13 Southern states' hate-crime laws are not inclusive of sexual orientation protections, and not one Southern state contains gender identity protections. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the five Southern states that do include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws are Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee and Texas. The five Southern states that do not include sexual orientation or gender identity in their hate crime legislation are Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.
Four states in the United States have no hate-crime laws whatsoever. Three are in the South: Arkansas, South Carolina and Georgia.
Though I couldn't find any anti-gay hate crime statistics by region, I think the above more than speaks for itself.
3 Now add in the 11 overturned by congress. While it is rare, it does happem.
And...yeah? I didn't say it doesn't happen. My specific words were "It's a safe bet" More likely than not, it will end up being the law of the land, and never will be changed. That's a fact. Your entire debating method here is providing a few counter examples to what is an already known, established, and accepted trend. It's not getting you anywhere. Just because you can pull a few exceptions out of the hat doesn't change the reality of anything that I've said.
"Middle Eastern countries aren't anti gay, Israel is plenty gay friendly!"
Do you see the nonsense in this statement? That's about as much sense that you're making.
