I suspected that. So I'll make it simpler and say that the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition. Marriage as a concept evolved from one man with as many women as he could take or buy, into one man and one woman.
There is a bizarre tendency amongst the left in this country that if they can prove any instances of contrary behavior, that then becomes THE behavioral standard, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the people did not behave that way. So be it. If you choose to believe that marriage being defined as a union between one man and one woman is a recent aberration, that's really not going to change my life. But you might as well point to Bill Clinton nailing an intern as proof that marriage was not so defined in the nineties.
Come to think of it, that's the logical next step for the left. "What! Marriage has never ever been defined as the union of one man and one woman! How dare you try to change marriage!" After all, there are still today some men living with multiple wives, so clearly (by proggie standards anyway) marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. (We'll ignore for the moment that Jewish polygamy doesn't actually get you any closer to same sex marriage as it still required one man and one woman for EACH marriage; a man could not marry a man, nor a woman marry a woman.)
For the record I'll repeat that I am in favor of gay marriage, as I don't think government (at any level) should have the authority to control whom we may and may not marry as long as our choices are mentally competent and of age. The difference seems to be that I'm honest enough to admit that opening up marriage to gays IS a change.
I'll save you some time because you're going way off track--the "left" (lol--there is no left in this country! ), doesn't care about the "original" definition of marriage, or ever tries to point to such things.
The real argument is that marriage is not an institution soley owned by the various religious systems in the world. the concept of marriage existed before man created god. And on top of that, marriage was never, ever used as a righteous devotion between two people--it was simply a legal (read religious, of the day) tool to declare property stakes. It amtters not what some peons believed they were marrying for, but that the families and those in charge knew very well that the best way to keep property (land), and to ensure that your newest property (your woman) was your mating vessel for life, was to throw some concept of god into the mix.
the only thing redefining and "destroying" marriage today is
straight marriage, as it's efficacy and popularity have been on a steady decline.
Anyone that thinks straight people choose not to get married because some gay people out there want to get married (the singularly retarded argument that gay marriage hurts straight marriage), really aren't worth considering.
it really is simple--if you don't want a gay marriage, just don't get one.