If they wouldn't receive significant emotional distress from it being legalized they wouldn't oppose it so adamantly.
Their emotional distress is unfounded. If they feel so threatened by it, they should just grow up and deal with it. That's all there is to it. A majority whining about an issue doesn't make them correct or ethical about that issue.
Tyranny of the majority is basically a civil rights thing. We let the majority win on all other arguments (well mod undue influence of money); civil rights issues don't actually impact the majority at all, except possibly removing an unfair advantage they shouldn't have had in the first place (like women getting to vote lowers the impact of a man's vote). But really, a person's civil rights and a person's "right" to not allow anything to happen that makes him or her "uncomfortable" without affecting him/her directly are not of equal importance. That's why the courts have time and time again led the charge in expanding civil rights.
Correct.
--
Geologists will date anything.