Ah, alrighty then .

Homosexuality has existed in spite of laws codifying prevailing majority views against homosexuality.

The point of our laws isn't to outlaw a preference, we're talking about behavior.

What is worth noting is that as individual states began to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, popular opinion polls began to reflect growing support and an increasing number of states have followed suit in increasingly rapid succession.

And if I were to say that this is the result of the change in popular opinion, where would I be wrong?

As more state laws changed, it became a more federally acceptable legal stance to support same-sex marriage and oppose DADT and DOMA.

Sure, they pick up more influence on the nation.

They affect each other, and there is really no basis for saying that the law does not have the capacity to both negatively and positively affect normative views.

...And that's not what I'm saying, laws can and do affect perceptions, but it's largely the other way around.

To suggest otherwise is to deny that the law affects human behavior and perspective, which is highly counter-intuitive.

Of course it affects human behavior, that's exactly what laws are for. I'm not denying that. As for perspective, I'll address that soon enough.

it formally codifies and makes institutional the notion of acceptability.

This is a tautology, you're basically reiterating your point that laws have a hand in determining social norms.

I'm saying that laws are largely the result of these norms, polygamy isn't permitted in one country and denied in another b/c of these laws, these laws simply exist for us to put on paper what we consider suitable to our way of life. Laws must always spring after the principles that they're built on.

Now, can laws influence social norms? Absolutely; but no society takes on the attributes of its exceptions.

I think that you're over interpreting what I've said.

The only point that I'm trying to make is that the state placing property rights as more important than businesses acting fairly has no bearing on whether or not it is socially acceptable for a business to act in such a way.

There we go.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In some parts of the US, it is legal to have sex with a porcupine. Just because laws aren't barring it doesn't mean that on its own it is socially acceptable.

Well, if he made that, then he's clearly angry about something........

It really only works when a majority of people are willing to accept it ie you just can't have islamic law in the US for the same reason that you can in Iran.