It's there in black and white. You yourself are quick to point out that words have specific, defined meaning. [Marriage] Figurative meaning beyond the literal what-it-actually-says meaning is subjective - it's filtered through social, cultural, and cognitive biases; one can twist that mean almost anything one wants it to. I am referring to what is actually printed in the book. I would expect that would be an acceptable source of truth regarding a particular religion.
Heh, heh, all you did there was restate your position showing your lack of understanding of both historical context as well as theology.
As far as circumcision is concerned I have no dog in that fight. It seems to be common practice in the USA, regardless of religious affiliation.
My point was that comparing it to FGM is something akin almost to a category error. The permanent damaging physical effects of FGM shouldn't be diminished by comparing it to circumcision.
The ramifications of letting our government in Orwellian fashion change the meaning of a word that has centuries of history as well as jurisprudence are not fully known. There have been threads where links have been posted regarding lawsuits against churches by gay groups here and abroad as soon as legal status was obtained, and here government is already demanding religious institutions violate their conscience and/or doctrine.
I wish this was really just the benign desire to have equal benefits bestowed upon them by the state. For many I'm sure that is really the case. Unfortunately the issue seems to me to be a Trojan Horse designed to weaken and damage religious institutions in the USA.