Historic Marriage?

One of the main arguments against Gay Marriage is this line about marriage being historically between one man and one woman. Here's an example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24969197/

I was thinking that, historically, it wasn't really one man & one woman; it was one man and one chattle. We were property, not women, with no right to vote, no right to own or inherit property; it isn't possible for 1 piece of property to own another, is it? Maybe we should say, 1 man & 1 piece of property.

Then again, if we want to get historical and look to the bible or other religious text, marriage isn't between 1 man & 1 woman -but 1 man and several women. I'm sure the group in Texas would be happy if we went back to that, historic, version of marriage. Don't forget, in the past different races weren't allow to marry. So this one man & one woman is becoming one man and several woman, as long as they were of the same race.

It is silly. Our culture has been evolving into a more equitable and just society - with a small 8 year slide - but, generally speaking, we've been on a progressive track. It was 89 years ago today we decided to allow 50% of the population to vote here in the US. And around 140 years before that we started letting non-white men vote too. Slow progress, sure.

I'm not buying it. I would prefer it to be marriage is between 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their days together.