Well, are you against gay rights? Do you want to deny them basic human rights for being what they are? Or is your problem mainly with the vocal supporters? And I accused you of elitism, due to your constant sighing about "Americans", not bigotry.
If you define "family" as between man, woman and child(ren), therefore it's an off-limit term to gays and lesbians, then what do you suggest? Giving them a new term they use to refer to their families? Because that sounds like singling them out, which you're against. Also, if you want to talk about tradition, "family" derives from the Latin term "familia", which in turn is derived from "famulus", which is both an adjective for servitude and a feminine noun for slave, or servant. Meaning it's built around the female being subservient to the male. By this logic, since it's the "traditional" definition of family, we should deny women the right to work, since their responsibility is to the household.
David I. Kertzer defines family as "a co-residential group that makes up a household ...and share(s) general survival goals and a residence, but may not fulfill the varied and sometimes ambiguous requirements for definition as a family; e.g., regulate sexuality or educate and socialize children". Gays and lesbians actually fit that description pretty well, and there's no evidence to suggest two gays raising a child will affect the child's growth any more than a heterosexual couple.
And marriage, as far back as Mesopotamia, was about purchasing a woman as a sexual partner and a nanny to any children the male might have. Yet modern marriage isn't about that, it's about both individuals consenting to be partners. Hell, ancient Greece's only parameters regarding marriage was that both agreed and address each other as man and wife - kind of like today, actually.
tl;dr - definitions change.