The way I took it is more that the line was up for discussion, and still the results don't change. Situations are far, far worse in many other places and I understand that, but the difference (and reason I posted the comment in the first place) I think is that theirs no open discussion about it in those places; there's no option to change, and so nothing is changed.
In a place where freedom is something that they feel is a vital piece of what makes us the country we are, the fact that such an issue is brought up and still raises as much controversy as it does is a little far fetched. Other places may have worse conditions, or less rights for gays, people of color, or followers of certain religions, and I understand that, but if those places went around throwing the "freedom" thing in everybodies face it would make for a much more valid argument. Point is, controversy, in my mind at least, needs an people to be for the topic as well as against the topic, and both sides need a proper platform with which to share their views and concerns, so the line he said doesnt raise the controversy in other countries that it does here not because they have it better, but more so due to the argument not occurring as openly.
Sorry for the long winded response. Hopefully it all makes sense. I am incredibly tired and on my way out the door for work haha