Remember that newlywed couple we blogged about a little while ago, the one who delivered the UK marriage petition with over 500,000 signatures? No good deed...
Rhys and Esther Curnow, from Newcastle, received scores of messages after opponents of their stance on same-sex marriage including a Labour councillor circulated their Facebook details online.
They included messages saying the couple, who are committed Christians, should “rot in hell” and wishing they would become infertile or die of cancer.
Several included explicit references to sexual acts while others suggested they should be subjected to “compulsory sterilisation”.
The couple, who married in March, became the public face of the Coalition For Marriage campaign, backed by Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, earlier this month when they handed in the group’s petition to David Cameron.
Mr Curnow, a charity researcher originally from Wales, and his wife, a primary schoolteacher from the West Midlands, dressed in wedding clothes and posed on the steps of Number 10 with a gift wrapped package containing signatures.
... A separate Facebook group was set up describing them as “homophobic”.
After receiving more than 100 direct messages the couple changed their security settings to block incoming messages other than from friends.
They have reported the matter to Northumbria Police but yesterday officers claimed that there was no evidence of a crime being committed as the messages did not contain direct threats. -- The UK Telegraph
37 Comments
Well, I don't think anyone should expect to speak out on behalf of marriage and not receive vituperation from hordes of SSMers.
They are quickly painting themselves as a group of hateful psychos.
Is there ever one instance where a person speaks out against ssm and *doesn't* receive a downpour of disgusting responses?
Yet another example of liberal tolerance and open mindedness.
There is a big difference between being pro marraige and anti gay. Someone who is anti gay is someone that beleives gays should have no rights at all, that they should be shunned, separated from society, treated no better than dogs..wheras someone who is pro marriage is ONLY saying man should be one man one woman, and not include any other type of relationship, such as polygamy and incest, and yes,,same sex couples. That's it.
Whenever you get haters like those, use them to drive the home the point: THESE are the people who want to redefine marriage. THIS is what they think of Middle America (or Middle Britain, in this case).
SSMers vary, of course. Overall there are the hardliners and the softer supporters of the SSM idea. The hardliners say to their supporters that it is okay ... even encouraged ... for SSMers to curse us and that we do not deserve any respect. There is an SSMer who guest blogs at David Blankenhorn's blog and that guy has condoned such cursing and disrespect. So this harline ugliness is mainstream among SSMers. Soft supporters of SSM are being duped.
Harliners are very common in the blogosphere and in the mainstream newsmedia and entertainment media. They set the tone. They are not marginal wackos. They are the beating heart of the SSM campaign.
Believe what they say because they do mean it.
Lefty, that's akin to arguing that the Westboro Baptist Church are representative of ALL christians against the redefinition of marriage. Using the tiny proportion of the lunatics (on both sides) to try and tar everyone with the same brush is a little daft. The vast majority of SSM supporters would not act in this way, it saddens me that some did, despite my own anger at the couple.
Yes, the hundreds of hateful SSM supporters must be a representative sample of SSM supporters as a whole, just like how all the people who tell homosexuals that they will burn in hell, use anti-gay slurs, and physically and psychologically abuse homosexuals are representative of all NOM supporters.
Or, maybe there are extremists on both sides.
Sadly, this is what we've come to expect whenever someone stands up for true marriage. I hope this young couple is weathering the storm. They did the right thing.
Interesting that the police didn't do anything. I seem to recall that the UK Thought Police have arrested citizens on the pro-marriage side for much less.
Those who understand true tolerance understand there is zero justification for such barbarism towards this couple.
Just proof that this fight is not about being "tolerant" or about "love." They do not truly tolerate nor do they truly love.
@john, that's what it sounds like you're saying: it's right to send hate mail because gay people are killed.
Why else mention the killing of gay people? Why not just condemn the hatred directed towards this couple? And what does gay people being killed have to do with this couple?
If I hear of a gay person being killed, I condemn the act resolutely. Murder is illegal in any case.
Likewise, if I hear of a person receiving nasty communications for speaking out in favor of ssm, I condemn those acts.
But I must admit, I don't hear too much about people suffering this sort of retribution for speaking out in favor of ssm. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't see it often.
SSMers are becoming a household name for a group which goes for the jugular of any person who civilly opposes them on policy matters.
No surprise to me they stalked many of my friends on facebook. They collect info and post derogatory comments on FB. They try to infiltrate any groups they can and intimidate people into silence. So much for the tolerance crowd!
Being committed Christians, "they should rot in hell?" These idiots REALLY don't get the whole "Jesus died for you" thing, don't they?
@JamesF
"Lefty, that's akin to arguing that the Westboro Baptist Church are representative of ALL christians against the redefinition of marriage"
Not even close.
God bless you Rhys and Esther Curnow for protecting marriage between one man and one woman. You have done nothing wrong, but only cherish that God created. I am so sorry you have been exposed to the true haters' and their venom. Their behavior is just criminal. But I am so very proud of you both, and pray the very best for you. May God place a hedge of protection and covering all around and about you, and all that concerns you, now and forever more. In Jesus' Name, I pray. Amen.
More news from Europe:
A court in Cologne Germany ruled that circumcision went against the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents."
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/26/german-court-declares-judaism-a-crime/
Are you now supporting the fundamental rights of parents whose religious beliefs and freedoms (like the USA) allow for female circumcism? it is practiced in 28 countries in western, eastern, and north-eastern Africa, in parts of the Middle East, and within some immigrant communities in Europe, North America, and Australasia. The World Health Organization estimates that 100–140 million women and girls around the world have experienced the procedure, including 92 million in Africa. The practise is carried out by some communities who believe it reduces a woman's libido. I am sure you are praying that the religious freedoms of these families are also not taken away from religious parents. We could set up a fund is you wish.
This has nothing to do with female circumcision, and you know it McLaren. Why don't you use honest arguments instead of these bogus strawmen?
SoA
Thank you.
Anti-religious folks always bring up the extremes of FGM or a child possibly not getting a life saving blood transfusion as their "go to" arguments for restricting parental rights.
AM's posting was an outrage about German courts taking away family rights regarding male circumcism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If AM wants to protect the religious freedoms of parents for male circumcism then why not 28 countries who have religious beliefs about female circumcism? Okay....I get it..these are not Christian beliefs so their religious freedoms don't count.
People of faith, pray for them!
Yes, John McLaren.
My defense of both Jews and Muslims to continue the rite necessary to fulfill their Covenant with God
in the tradition of Abraham is my Christian bias showing.
Your logic is impeccable.
No, female circumcision is not correct! But you have to wonder, (that's just an expression, for you don't have to wonder anything on my account), if implementing the practice would bring down the number of lesbians in our country. We wouldn't implement it under a religious law, that would not be right at all, but rather under a secular law so that everyone could accept it.
Now that we got the discussion back up to the level it belongs... This newly wed couple has sure had one short honeymoon. But at least they will wake up in the morning married. Wake up to find themselves “one” (not in a religious sense, heavens no not that, but in a biological, psychological, and physical sense; scientific in short). Wake up to find themselves the one human spices in its completed form, (with all the organs, chromosomes, possibilities and complexities of the human species represented in the one entity that they have become). Wake up to find themselves that thing which the same-sex couple can never become: married. Which does make me think that Son of Adam's comment does hold some validity after all: for what in the world does circumcision have to do with it?
PS. And you know what? That one healthy human species in its completed form will on its own reproduce itself. How do you like that! Isn't that amazing (and beautiful)? (And unique!) Almost makes you want to become religious just for the thought of it; but heavens no, anything but that..
On a secular level. The man-woman union merits a name – marriage would do just fine.
McLaren, comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is just as absurd an analogy as comparing traditional family values to slavery and/or racial segregation. The judgement in Cologne is just an excuse to oppress and ostrasize Jews under the guise of human and civil rights. The government enforced redefinition of marriage does the same thing to people of faith - an assult on Judeo-Christian values under the guise of "equality" and "fairness."
@Good News, a married couple is not biologically or physically "one". They are still very much separate beings, they just enjoy the benefits of a legal contract along with the pleasures of sticking a certain appendage into a certain orifice.
I agree that they may be psychologically "one", or at least feel like they have a strong psychological bond, but that of course wouldn't change if they were the same sex.
You use a lot of flowery language about the "healthy", "completed form" of the human species, but I think the "unique name" you are looking for is "vaginal intercourse". All of the biological/physical "oneness" you describe could only possibly apply to men and women who are actively having vaginal intercourse, and even then all you have is one human's appendage stuck inside of another human's orifice.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a legal contract between two consenting adults that grants the couple certain government benefits, and represents legal recognition of their commitment to one another. I don't see what your post has to do with the argument we are really having -- should those two consenting adults always be one of each gender, or is "two consenting adults" enough? I believe marriage can promote family building for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike, and that both types of relationships (regardless of the type of sex they have, and whether that can lead to biological children or a physical "oneness" that you describe) deserve the same legal rights, and that families built around any two loving parents are a benefit to society.
@ Jon, all you are doing is proposing the neat little same sex model of marriage as if you in any way had the authority to do so, which you do not. Where do you get the authority to declare that marriage should be gender neutral? True, marriage is defined in law, but has a real definition apart from the law.
Again, I ask why do people in homosexual relationships deserve to be recognised as married when they fundamentally fail the characteristics required to be married?
Jon,
The SSM campaign is based on the falsehood that the bride-groom requirement and support for it is the manifestation of hatred and bigotry.
David Blankenhorn's own blogsite has a guest blogger who is proSSM and who has claimed to have a special talent for public discourse on this issue. He has condoned ... and encouraged ... cussing and namecalling those of us who support the bride-groom requirement. He had in mind Robert P George in particular but all marriage defenders in general. He expressly said that he believes we do not seserve respect and that this attitude and extremism is especially okay for SSM supporters who are of the gay identity group.
This sort of sleazy and venomous proSSM advocacy is mainstream among the leading voices of the SSM campaign. It is not just a relative few. It is extreme but central and not marginal among SSMers. The hardliners are probably 25% or more of SSM supporters and of the softer SSM supporters most use the one-step-forward-two-steps-backward ploy that feigns plausible deniability when they make excuses such as seen in comment #9 by SSMer John. It is very very very common in mainstream news media as well political lobbying.
This is the theme of the SSM campaign. That you would rather this be percieved as the approach of a few extremists tells readers that you detect that it is wrong and should be resisted. But do you really believe that?
Jon's proposal of the same sex model of marriage makes sense; sense doesn't require authority to be correct.
Not that Anthony has any more authority on the subject than he seems to think Jon doesn't.
And, anyway, who really does have the authority to declare such a thing anyway???
Oh, wait - I know.... the Ninth Circuit.
The relationship of husband and wife is comprehensive. As such it is a bodily union. Coital relations is unitive of man and woman ... of a mating pair ... and there is no other candidate for bodily union.
Jon would reduce the husband-wide relationship to a contract. This is an absurdity because the mere consent to an agreement is no trump card for eligibility to marry. That to which consent is given is at issue and not consent itself.
Consent goes beyond the indivual participant and includes consent of society via governing authority. This is a public type of relationship and not a private contract between private participants.
Marriage has a reality independent of law ... even independent of contract law. The law is not the source of marriage.
SSMers who complain that the marriage can get it wrong must acknowledge that they could not possibly believe that unless marriage has an independent reality. Well, otherwise the SSMer would have to rely on the arbitrariness of lawmaking but that directly contradicts the proSSM complaint that the law is somehow arbitrarily favoring the bride-groom relationship type. The SSMer usually paints himself into such a corner but then throws a fit and blames others as hateful and bigoted.
Hence the extremism of the SSM campaign'sleading voices who make this nonsense the mainstream theme of their political strategy. And that is used routinely to excuse the sleazy behavior that was aimed at the newlywedded husband and wife in the UK.
Jon'sSSM idea or model does not make sense in the context of replacing the marriage idea. The core meaning of marriage is the combination of 1) integration of the sexes and 2) provision for responsible procreation. This is a combination that forms a coherent whole. It is the core of a foundational social institution of civil society.Marriage is neither created by nor owned by Government. It is regulated by society due to the societal preference for the core meaning. Line of eligibility are drawn around this core meaning. In other words, marriage law is for marriage and not for other stuff.
No one sexed scenario fits this core of marriage. Gayness is not a trump card. Samesex sexual behavior is not a trump card. Nonmarriage is not defined by either. SSMers cannot make sense of marriage by affirming its core so they attack the core, insisting that society reject the marriage idea, and demand that government act arbitrarily to drop marriage from its prefertial status down to a barely tolerative status so as to elevate the controlling authority of gay identity politics over all other considerations.
SSM does not make sense otherwise. SSMers demonstrate this by their irrational emphasis on gayness which is irrelevant to marriage and to marriage law.
@ Jon etc,
Now you see the clarity of it all? You are talking about the redefined version of marriage. I am talking about a union which existed before states, nations and laws. And one which still exists. This union has always had a specific name. So you can understand why so many people do not find it fair or just that it now goes unnamed through no fault of its own. No matter what kind of society we build around ourselves this thing (the “ONE human-species”, otherwise known under the word “marriage”) will still exist. And it will still be as unique and original as it ever was. The only thing that will have changed, is that its name will have been stolen away from it. And for no other reason than for having been caught up in some temporal, psychological, social and cultural war.
We want our children and ourselves to be able to express clearly (with one word) what it is that is truly wanted when it is said, “I want to get married”. Which is, before and above all else, expressing the wish to unite oneself to all the organs, chromosomes and possibilities that one is missing within his own sex (all those things that one cannot obtain by uniting to his own sex). And so through that unique union become the - “ONE-human-species”. Which will, through its natural healthy existence, in and of itself, in the same way it eats, sleeps and defecates, reproduce itself. And so at the same time provide itself (in complete independence of state) with offspring. Which is the natural out growth (or part of the natural growing process) of the healthy “ONE human-species”.
This thing has nothing to do first and foremost with legal issues, legal benefits, societal statues, financial advantageous, human rights and the like. And it has nothing to do with prejudice, hate or comparisons. It is simply a unique and natural object existing within our universe, as is the sun and the moon. That the powers that be simply do not want to allow this thing to be named does suggest ulterior motives than those stated under the banner of justice. And it does create a real sense of injustice to those who cherish that thing that has been unjustly striped of name, which is the “ONE human-species” (for lack of another word). This creates the a feeling of being intimately attacked by ones own government (and some fellow citizens) who will not allow them or their community to communicate with their own children in clarity and in simplicity on the subject of the “ONE-human-species” (marriage).
You evoked the new redefined definition of marriage as if it was the most evident thing on earth. So do allow me to evoke the thing that today has been stolen away from the English language: “hazasodik” in the Hungarian language (if I'm not mistaken) means “marry”. That country added this year to its national constitution the following, “ Hungary protects the institution of marriage between man and woman, a matrimonial relationship voluntarily established, as well as the family as the basis for...”
We do need a word to accurately translate the word hazasodik into the English language. For the thing it is naming is real, unique and worthy of name. Otherwise we are just trying to hide a reality from our community (and especially from our growing children) by the suppression of the word that named it.
This word is needed so that we can say in simplicity, without prejudice, malice, ulterior motive or misunderstanding, “I'm going to get hasasodiked” (“married”, or “I'm going to become the human species in its competed form”). And if that newly hassasodiked couple wants to, in addition, obtain any government benefits and legal recognition that their country America might privilege them with because of such a union, well than they can go get married as well. But it is being hasasodiked (being the “ONE-human-specie”) that the couple wanted above and before all else; the other stuff only being secondary.
The man-man union and the man-woman union are different. Truly. Different. That is not prejudiced. We need to, in justice, be able to linguistically distinguish between the two; for the healthy psychological development of our children and our society. And we need to be able to clearly distinguish these two different unions starting in kindergarten, and before. Anything other than clear distinction is voluntary manipulation of the people by the state. (In our case, America, the state is simply the commercial market at this point, Wall Street etc.)
And I would say that the homo community does not have much to say on the subject of the word marriage. We will all be manipulated together. This thing, as deigned, has moved on to another level, and the homo community is just being used, used as a practical tool. The reality is, bring up the subject of homosexuality when talking about the validity of having a unique name for the man-woman union, is changing the subject. But that's maybe getting off topic here, and going too far for this letter. And cutting to deep into – the weekend!
@ Jon and others,
Now you see the clarity of it all? You are talking about the redefined version of marriage. I am talking about a union which existed before states, nations and laws. And one which still exists. This union has always had a specific name. So you can understand why so many people do not find it fair or just that it now goes unnamed through no fault of its own. No matter what kind of society we build around ourselves this thing (the “ONE human-species”, otherwise known under the word “marriage”) will still exist. And it will still be as unique and original as it ever was. The only thing that will have changed, is that its name will have been stolen away from it. And for no other reason than for having been caught up in some temporal, psychological, social and cultural war.
We want our children and ourselves to be able to express clearly (with one word) what it is that is truly wanted when it is said, “I want to get married”. Which is, before and above all else, expressing the wish to unite oneself to all the organs, chromosomes and possibilities that one is missing within his own sex (all those things that one cannot obtain by uniting to his own sex). And so through that unique union become the - “ONE-human-species”. Which will, through its natural healthy existence, in and of itself, in the same way it eats, sleeps and defecates, reproduce itself. And so at the same time provide itself (in complete independence of state) with offspring. Which is the natural out growth (or part of the natural growing process) of the healthy “ONE human-species”.
This thing has nothing to do first and foremost with legal issues, legal benefits, societal statues, financial advantageous, human rights and the like. And it has nothing to do with prejudice, hate or comparisons. It is simply a unique and natural object existing within our universe, as is the sun and the moon. That the powers that be simply do not want to allow this thing to be named does suggest ulterior motives than those stated under the banner of justice. And it does create a real sense of injustice to those who cherish that thing that has been unjustly striped of name, which is the “ONE human-species” (for lack of another word). This creates the a feeling of being intimately attacked by ones own government (and some fellow citizens) who will not allow them or their community to communicate with their own children in clarity and in simplicity on the subject of the “ONE-human-species” (marriage).
You evoked the new redefined definition of marriage as if it was the most evident thing on earth. So do allow me to evoke the thing that today has been stolen away from the English language: “hazasodik” in the Hungarian language (if I'm not mistaken) means “marry”. That country added this year to its national constitution the following, “ Hungary protects the institution of marriage between man and woman, a matrimonial relationship voluntarily established, as well as the family as the basis for...”
We do need a word to accurately translate the word hazasodik into the English language. For the thing it is naming is real, unique and worthy of name. Otherwise we are just trying to hide a reality from our community (and especially from our growing children) by the suppression of the word that named it.
This word is needed so that we can say in simplicity, without prejudice, malice, ulterior motive or misunderstanding, “I'm going to get hasasodiked” (“married”, or “I'm going to become the human species in its competed form”). And if that newly hassasodiked couple wants to, in addition, obtain any government benefits and legal recognition that their country America might privilege them with because of such a union, well than they can go get married as well. But it is being hasasodiked (being the “ONE-human-specie”) that the couple wanted above and before all else; the other stuff only being secondary.
The man-man union and the man-woman union are different. Truly. Different. That is not prejudiced. We need to, in justice, be able to linguistically distinguish between the two; for the healthy psychological development of our children and our society. And we need to be able to clearly distinguish these two different unions starting in kindergarten, and before. Anything other than clear distinction is voluntary manipulation of the people by the state. (In our case, America, the state is simply the commercial market at this point, Wall Street etc.)
And I would say that the homo community does not have much to say on the subject of the word marriage. We will all be manipulated together. This thing, as deigned, has moved on to another level, and the homo community is just being used, used as a practical tool. The reality is, bring up the subject of homosexuality when talking about the validity of having a unique name for the man-woman union, is changing the subject. But that's maybe getting off topic here, and going too far for this letter. And cutting to deep into – the weekend!
@Jon
Their physical bond is their biological offspring. And the physical act that can in principle create offspring. And it is the uniting of the two sexes that each physically bring to the union the organs and chromosomes that the other person does not have. And so in doing so physically unites all the organs and chromosomes and possibilities and complexities of the human species, into on entity.
Don't think to hard. Its not intellectual. Its a physical.
But if you really can't think up your own word for the same-sex union and really and truly must steal away the word marriage for yourself, than we'll just have to invent another word to name the unique man-woman union – the “ONE-human-species” in its completed form. That which two people of the same sex can never become.
@Jon
No. The human-species in its completed form is much more complex than that. It is a living and breathing thing.
The one human spices in its completed form, that is with all the organs, chromosomes, POSSIBILITIES and COMPLEXITIES that this entails, of the human species.
A human being is a full and complete human-being in and of himself. But he is not the human species in its completed form. To become that, he has to get married. For a life long commitment is also needed for all the possibilities and complexities of the human species in its completed form to exist.
And as a human being can be missing a leg or an organ and so some possibilities does not take away the reality that he is a human being; so it goes with the human species in its completed form which is the “ONE-human-species” But I agree with you, the word marriage would be a much better way of naming it.
Compared to the hate spread by anti-gay marriage supporters, this is honestly nothing. It's laughable. I however, don't support anyone sending them hate mail even if it's a ridiculous opinion, but I'll still say that I wish them best wishes in their marriage and I hope they have a wonderful family some day (well clearly they don't have kids yet).
Okay, let me start out, English has never been a language where all words have one set definition for any given time. Words evolve, and are created, and are fit to suit the present generation. Words like "swag" didn't exist, and words like "juice' didn't use to mean drugs. The definition of marriage can and has evolved to include any union between two adults of consenting age, regardless of gender or sexuality.
Another thing, most people on here seem to under the impression that one chooses your own sexuality. You don't. Scientists have determined that sexuality comes from genetic, environmental, and chance developments while still in the womb. And honestly, if you chose your sexuality, would you choose the one that gets ridiculed and denied legality most places? That doesn't make sense.
Third, religion has been a factor in marriage. Religions haven't always been around, but people have. Previous human incarnates would mate just the same, and they would care for their offspring. They didn't have all of the rituals and elaborations that have come from today. When Judaism began, their idea of marriage was changed. When Islam began, they had a slightly different idea of marriage. And when Christianity began, THEY had a slightly different idea of marriage. You see, saying that marriage is one certain way with set ideas conflicts with the idea of freedom of and from religion, and it is not how marriage previously existed in the U.S.
Fourthly, this paragraph is for Christians. You quote Leviticus 18:22, which says, "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Sure it says that. Now look at Leviticus 19:19, which says, "Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Have you ever bred and created a mule? Have you ever gardened two types of vegetables? Have you ever worn a cotton-polyester shirt? Congratulations, you've just sinned. And because of James 2:10, which says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it," your religion says that you are going to hell, just as badly as any homosexual in your eyes. Besides, if you look through the Bible, it's filled with rules you break everyday. Why are only some parts of Bible payed attention to and followed, while others aren't part of "The Absolute Truth"?
Fifth, you're saying that homosexuals destroy the sanctity of marriage. I'm pretty sure that marrying strangers in a bar after knowing them for a few hours, divorcing a few weeks after marrying someone, or having several marriages with different people, thinking you're in love each time is destroying marriage. Not two men or two women who you've never met, and who don't interfere with your life in any way getting married and living wonderful, long, loving lives.
Sixth, you say that homosexuality is unnatural, and that humans were born to reproduce. So why do we allow people to live without being in relationships? Why do some people simply have sex for the fun of it? And if everyone is supposed to reproduce, then how are we supposed to find more space in the foster homes and orphanages for all of the offspring that we can't take care of? Half of the world is already starving, and you want EVERYONE to add more hungry mouths to it?
Seventh, people would have died without the health insurance benefits of being married. Say your partner became critically ill and was put into a hospital. They have no life insurance to pay for the treatment that could save their life. You could afford to pay for it with your own health insurance, but the hospital won't accept it. They won't even let you in the room to see your partner. It's because you are not married. Now your partner is dead, leaving your children with a single parent, you without a lover and a friend. You don't make a high enough income and can't pay the bills. You are evicted. You are struggling to survive. Is this fair to anyone? Luckily, this may become a "has been" in America because Obamacare has been upheld, making health insurance mandatory, as long as Mitt Romney doesn't strike it down.
Lastly, this is LOVE. People get married because they love each other. Love can transcend gender boundaries. What would you think if someone didn't like your style of marriage and invalidated it, leaving you without a union, and the benefits, federal and personal, that come with it. Are you going to let happen to yourself and others like you?
I hope I have been able to open your minds a little wider to a different sexuality today. Different doesn't have to be bad. All humans are human, and love is love.
And by the way, for those of you thinking I only think and exaggerate these things because it would be for my own benefit, I'm heterosexual. And, I'm only 14. If a 14 year-old can figure it out, I hope you can too.
"A Liberal Kid", the nature of humankind is two-sexed. Human sexuality reflects that directly in the nature of human procreation and of human community.
If you are using the word, sexuality, in lieu of a more precise reference to sexual attraction -- with the emphasis on same-sex sexual attraction, then, your opening remarks about the use of language does not stand you in good stead.
Marriage has been two-sexed even in irreligious societies. The core meaning of marriage as a social institution has remained constant even as there have been variations on the parameters -- where society governs the protocols and regulations around that core meaning. This speaks strongly against your notion that variation must mean endless variation of the core meaning.
Your rather shallow paragraph on Leviticus belies a superficiality in your thinking on that matter. You might want to learn more before clinging to that paragraph's nonsense.
Your fifth paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.
Likewise your sixth paragraph.
And the seventh paragraph.
Love is not a legal requirement for eligiblity to marry. But love is a central feature of many nonmarital types of relationships. You are not really talking about love but about something else. You are trying to emphasize same-sex sexual behavior. But that is not a legal requirement for those who'd SSM anyplace where SSM has been imposed in legal systems. So it can't be an essential of SSM.
Afterall, is that your meaning when it comes to 'sex for fun' and the other irrelevancies of your previous remarks? Sure.
Whether or not you are heterosexual (or play one in the comment section), whether or not you are a 14-year-old (or play one in the comment section), all of that, just plain irrelevant to the serious issue of marriage.
It is a truly tiresome routine of some of the SSM commenters here to use variable monikers and to troll under the guise of a wise but oh-so-naive SSM supporter who just wants to state the plain truth. Of course, the content of such comments is usually comprised of the sort irrelevancies and falsehoods that have appeared now under the moniker "A Liberal Kid".
Repeating the frivolous propaganda of the SSM campaign is not a good way to engage in a truthful discussion of serious matters.