I said majority of people, not Americans. My statement stands correct. Look at what other countries have done to recently stem gay culture: Russia recently passed a unanimous (436-0) vote which banned gay propaganda[1]. Homosexuals acceptance is pushed hard in the western media, but don't let that skew your worldview. Reactionary responses are not uncommon.
You keep arguing with logical fallacies, but I'll respond anyway. Russia is doing quite well and just became the 5th largest economy[1]. They also have a news station (Russia Today) which reports on real issues - unlike western "mainstream" media. You act as if Russia is some backwater slump and not a growing modern nation. Meanwhile the western world is teetering into bankruptcy. You won't know which side of history is right until it actually becomes history.
America grew very well economically while - and partly due to - using African slaves. The European empires dominated the planet economically while believing they had a divine mandate to exploit the savages. Wealth generation has nothing to do with the goodness of a behaviour or attitude.
Do you think stance on gay rights is the cause of economic problems or Russia's current situation?
It's possible that some day the entire world will despise homosexuality, or that the entire world will be fine with it. Both of those scenarios could happen regardless of whether countries currently on one side or the other end up as the world powers.
Personally I believe that gay rights will keep on improving, not get worse, and therefore you are on the wrong side of history. But I could be wrong about that, so it's fine if you disagree with my prediction. Just, disagree with it using relevant logic, not unrelated situations.
If you remember to control for oil wealth when graphing "acceptance of homosexuality" against per capita GDP you'll probably be surprised by how well correlated they are...
These are the kinds of attacks that people who stand for traditional marriage have to face. A bigoted army of people who can't muster a better argument than vulgar name calling. The irony is that they claim to stand against intolerance...
By using euphemisms like "stand for traditional marriage" you automatically lose the argument. You do not have to defend straight marriage. No one is against it. There's nothing to stand for. In fact you are against the other things. Your position is one of sanction and oppression, not support.
It's changing the definition of the word, so yes there is something to stand for. If you don't believe marriage needs defending, look at the rates of marriage. Now the meaning of marriage has been diluted so much, no one wants to get married anymore - there's no point except to possibly get benefits from the state.
I could have just as easily said people who use the term "homophobic" automatically lose the argument, as there's no fear involved. This is a battle of semantics - and if we want a quality debate then we need to keep definitions consistent.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/russia-law-banni...