We are discussing the article that you cited several posts ago. That article discusses "homosexuality", not "gay marriage".<quoted text>
1. The article cites OLD ideas that science has discounted. It concludes with the observation that an answer should have been found long ago. Instead, no purpose for homosexuality has been found. That means the most likely answer is a defect. Something epi-genetics is asserting.
2. We've been down this road before. I've posted the earliest records of berdaches and read them. Aside from roles you listed that have no roots in history, the others are one time notes or rumors that history records. However, the most often role of Indian transvestites is as the term denotes, male prostitutes. They were most often passed around, abused and mocked. You only confirm what I noted. Societal rejection of homosexuality is cross cultural.
3. The assertion you made was that gay marriage was prevalent. You simply noted the presence of homosexuality. Again, the actual record of gay 'marriages' can be counted on one hand.
If the history of homosexuality is so scarce, why did the author of the article discuss its presence in various cultures throughout history?
As David P. Barash, the author of your article, puts it, "if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage."
You keep hanging your hat on the "epi-genetic theory". What you can't seem to wrap your head around is the fact that this theory DOES NOT indicate a mistake of nature. The theory simply offers an explanation of why there are gay people.
Since scientists have already determined that homosexuality is a normal orientation along the continuum of human sexuality, then it is ridiculous for you to continue claiming that homosexuality is a "mistake".