(Original post by ScheduleII)
You wrote "The State is there to serve society"- you gave no reason why "society" cannot cope with marriage being man/woman and gays having the freedom they currently do, including to have their relationship legally recognised in the form of a civil partnership. It quite clearly can.
That does not
equate to marriage being a civil right.
Not everything which is legal and/or accepted by the State is a "civil right". That term should be reserved only for the most important things, which it would be fundamentally unjust to deny, second only to a human rights violation.
Human rights are God-given/ inherent in nature and are not granted by the state, but can only be recognised by it, and are best guaranteed by living under a stable government. IE freedom from torture, slavery, degrading treatment etc.
Civil rights relate directly in some way to the state and cannot pre-exist organised political activity: the right to vote, to freedom of assembly, to criticise one's government, to protest peacefully against a law one considers unjust, to a fair trial without discrimination or prejudice, etc. If any of these are not provided there is a significant oppression and/or loss of freedom for the citizens denied them. If a homosexual couple are legally permitted to set up home together, to have a sexual relationship and to provide for state-controlled benefits under the same restrictions as heterosexuals (must be 16+, not close relatives, etc.) there is no injustice taking place and no significant government denial of liberty.
Heck, if the UK authorities wanted to deny civil rights to homosexuals, they would have never allowed civil partnerships or passed the Equality Act 2010 which includes all four of LGBT as protected characteristics.