Hahaha, that was indeed a joke. I was trying to point out other Christian things that have non-Christian origins.

 wrong. The earliest recording of the institution of marriage was in Genesis, and was between a man and a woman. I believe that a gay couple should have the same rights as a Hetro couple, but the term marriage is for a Man and a Women. I think Civil Union is a good term for the gays to use.

Besides, Marriage was originally started by the Bible... So why is not legal Marriages considered infingment on seperation of church and state? Just a though.

Note, the whether or not u believe it was a Biblical commandment for marriage to be between a man and a woman, u at least have to agree that is where the term comes from (I believe the idea is from the bible, the family unit) look at ancient pagan cultures, like Sparta for instance, they did not have the view of a family that we do now. The view we have now comes from the Bible.

I think gays should be allowed all the rights as hetero couples, but instead of marriages we should call them "butt buddies."

Sparta totally had families. Early tribal and nomadic peoples had families. What would they have been doing differently until the Bible came around? Were people not getting married and having the same types of families in ancient Japan, India, and Africa? If not, what the fuck was their crazy non-family world like back then?

Are you kidding me?  Do you honestly think Genesis was the earliest recorded marriage?  You need to take some history classes bigjon. 

Genesis was written around 900-800 BC, which is millenia after the many Sumerian, Acadian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian stories as well as legal records were written which included people getting married.

Come on bigjon, do your homework.

What about this. Outside of religion, love is simply a set of neurological reactions designed for one thing: procreation. With a homosexual couple, the union does not provide procreation and is not natural. To argue that love is more than a set of neurological reactions designed for procreation, you have to question the concept of evolution.

This is just my thought process. If anyone can provide a proper rebuttal, I will change my mind.

The simplest retribution I can give you is that non of these, union, love, procreation etc have to be intertwined. I can love my girl dearly, but I sure as hell don't want a baby. Vice versa, there are people who want a baby but can't have it so they seek for instance a carriermother. The carriermother is then infused with the semen of the man from that marriage with absolutely no love between the two of them.

So for gay people, union can be about love, about increasing the chances of adopting a baby (which holds true for most of Europe) and what not but it sure as hell does not directly have to do with procreation. 

Using that same reason, medical practice on genetic-related illness shoul be banned.

oh yes because marriage was written in stone before the dinasours and even men.

good look trying to proof that, darwin says hello!

there is no record on that, simply isn't marriage existed before it was stated by the jews and christians, people before in different religions married, even indians.

Homosexual activity is actually pretty common in nature.  Obviously heterosexual activity is more common, but there is a lot of documented evidence of homosexuality in animals.  Some biologists argue that it actually creates stronger relationships within clans or packs of animals, and that some types of animals  who do engage in homosexual behavior actually work better in groups with each other than those that don't.

Not to say that their aren't counterarguments to some of the theories for why it happens, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexual activity in nature is relatively ordinary.

How was I wrong there?  In Rome gay people got married until the Codex of Theodosian was passed.... because Christians took control of Rome.