Cecilie, I don't think of posting in a thread like this as responding to an individual as much as responding to the subject at hand. I've read all of your posts on this subject and if you notice, I haven't bothered to respond to one of them, so don't sweat wanting to talk to me.
Just post a legitimate reason or don't. Can you demonstrate the harm?
Letting your eyes run over the letters isn't the same as reading. You've made it very clear that the only posts you're allowing to travel into your head in search of your brain are the ones which agree with your preconceived notions; otherwise, you wouldn't be blathering about "no legitimate reason". All that really means is "no reason I'm prepared to pay attention to, because they don't agree with me".
Shockingly, I never said you had responded to me, and frankly, you never had to feel any need to break that record, because as I said, you aren't bothering to talk to anyone but yourself really anyway.
Who said "harm" was the only legitimate reason? Who are YOU to tell the voters what their reasons have to be? And how's having your freedom to vote and participate in public affairs for harm? I'd feel pretty damned harmed at this point if I lived in Iowa. And who the hell are you to tell me any different and decide for me whether or not I've been harmed?
Oh, yes. There was no legalized homosexual "marriage" anywhere, nor anyone trying to create it, so naturally activists went out and campaigned against something that didn't exist and had never been thought of, and THAT'S how this came to be public.
Are you really that damned stupid, or do you think the rest of us are?
Clearly, you aren't married with children. Marriage is only a promised land of unbounded legal and financial opportunity to morons who can't get a date.
To quote Thomas Sowell:
In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.
Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.
In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.
Don't believe me? Go sit in your local divorce or child custody court sometime. The handful of pittances the law gives out in terms of recognition of marriage are intended to help mitigate the fact that marriage and child-rearing are frigging hard, slogging, mundane work most of the time, doing something that society needs done. They're not intended to be some flowers-and-rainbows celebration of the splendiferousness of romance and love.
You want to talk about emotional rants? That pie-eyed nonsense you just spouted is exactly why so many marriages end in divorce these days. Dimwits like you have no frigging clue what marriage really is, thinking it's this big glittering party where everyone's being given nifty doorprizes that you're left out of. Then they get there and find out that it's not, and bail. And no, you twit, I don't find it personally offensive. What you can't seem to wrap your peabrain around is that I DON'T CARE enough to find it offensive. How you or anyone else live your personal life means nothing to me, because YOU mean nothing to me. I know that's hard to believe, but YOU DON'T MATTER TO ANYONE BUT YOU. My interest begins and ends at the point where you try to take away other people's rights in the name of your own perceived moral authority.
But thank you for proving that you never read any posts that disagree with you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be spouting an opinion I've already disputed three times in this thread alone. Oh, yeah. You really read all my posts. Uh huh.
