@Foxfyre,
You have said that your definition of marriage is the same definition that spans at least 4000 to 6000 years. That was at least wildly exaggerated.
In fact, the definition of what marriage meant has changed significantly even in the short time since the Thirteen Colonies. Marriage between a black and a white person was a crime. Divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts therefore usually refused to grant a divorce.
And then, you have the "traditional marriage" of the Mormons, where the term was defined as the union between one man and several women (or girls, for that matter).
Your definition of "traditional marriage" is valid for a couple of decades, nothing more.
Furthermore, your claim that no other kind of union other than the union between a man and a woman has been the norm is equally specious. For example, there is ample evidence for the widespread practice of unions between a man and a boy in ancient Greece, ranging from numerous poems that idolize the love between a boy and a man to depictions of pederasty on vases. Assuming the female role in a homosexual relationship was looked down upon, but at the same time well thought-out social protocols existed which protected youths (which usually took over that part) from the shame associated with being sexually penetrated.
In Japan, rituals existed to formalize the relationship between two men. Tradionally, the love between two men was regarded as the purest form of love. In the tradition of the Samurai, a younger warrior would become the partner and lover of an older and more experienced Samurai.
And just in those two examples, we're not talking about "anecdotal evidence", but about a widespread and well-documented practices that were highly formalized and a norm for not only decades, but centuries.
