The article provides a list of supposed examples of how it "defines" it as other things. But this is going down the wrong road.
First, let me say that I don't know that the Bible "defines" marriage at all (and a lot of this post is a digression into the tactic taken here.) The Bible does talk about all kinds of things. There's murder. There's adultery (which suggests some recognition of marital obligations), there's betrayal -- there is all kinds of "sin" in the Bible. But these aren't examples of standards to be lived up to. They are generally lessons in what is wrong, or at the very most, examples of the way things simply are. Or were, as the case may be. Much of what is referenced by the guy turns out to be the relation of facts by the Biblical text, not instructions as to what should be, and much liberty was taken (in the items listed farther below) in the interpreted conclusions.
I never was, and especially now am not, a Biblical literalist. Or even a practicing religious person at all in the way that "practice" would commonly be understood.
But I do find it amusing that non-Christians (especially those of the anti-Christian persuasion) will go digging into the Bible and turn these things up as if, because there is a story about an adulteress, then adultery is condoned by the Bible. Cain murdered Abel, and it's in the Bible, so ... the Bible and therefore Christianity condones it?
One should at least gain an understanding of the big picture the Bible presents before commenting on what a particular passage shows, whether you're a believer or not.
The article the guy linked gives a bunch of examples from the Old Testament ...
- Marriage consists of one man and one or more women.
- Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have.
- The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the biblical mindset.
- If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned
For those who claim these are all Old Testament laws and that the New Testament supersedes them, consider in the New Testament that:
- Women are allowed to marry the man of their father's choosing ... because women are the property of their father until married and their husband afterwards.
- Interfaith marriages are prohibited.
- If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow
- Divorce is forbidden, and finally ...
- It's better, according to St. Paul, to not get married at all.
Especially when they outright ignore passages such as this:
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”But again, these last few passages are on divorce, not on defining marriage as between one man and one woman. It's a digression used to embarrass the literalists, not to show that the New Testament doesn't say One Man, One Woman. It is clear here that the singular is consistently used when referring to man or wife, and that the two, (not the three, four, eight) become one.
8 appears to say that even before Moses, divorce was frowned upon by God. And it should be clear that the "better not to marry" claim is taken entirely out of context, as the "if" clause was completely ignored. Plus it was the disciples saying it, not Christ. It appears to me that they may have been saying, in effect, "Harsh, dude!"
All this being said, the argument I've made all along has nothing to do with the Bible or science, but culture and religion as it is practiced -- and the cultural forcing that is being attempted through the use of the Government by the same-sex "marriage" activists.
You have the right, in America, to do as you please and to call it what you please as long as no coercion is involved on others and it doesn't break their leg or pick their pocket. And others have the right to react to it within those confines as they see fit. When you use government to define cultural things, especially ancient and deeply ingrained cultural things -- you are overstepping the bounds of limited government.