If you are against gay marriage, explain why without mentioning religion

[Aielyn]

My personal opinion is, let the religions have "marriage". As far as laws, nations, etc, are concerned, everyone should have a "civil union" if they want to be recognised as a couple as far as any of that is concerned.

For those in favour of gay marriage who go "but the term 'marriage' is too important, this is about equality", I'll point out that nothing stops a gay couple who isn't part of a religion that bars all homosexuality from getting "married", either - it's a term, even atheist organisations can have their own "marriage", and the church can't complain about it any more than pagans can complain about the church co-opting their biggest holidays. The important thing is that, in the eyes of the state, everyone is treated equally, and that is achieved using "civil unions" and striking all mentions of marriage from all laws (replaced by civil unions where appropriate).

For those against gay marriage, and who go "the name isn't the important thing, it's the support for homosexuality that is the issue" or similar arguments, I'll point out that in a free society, freedom of religion is key, and that also means freedom from religion. Marriage, as it stands, is a union between two people capable of consent - that is, two people who are capable of entering into a contract. Because as far as the legal status of "marriage" is concerned, it is a contract observed by the state.

That means that "slippery slope" arguments about paedophilia and bestiality don't make sense, because neither children nor animals are capable of entering into a contract. Neither children nor animals are capable of consent, as far as laws are concerned. This is why you always hear things like "if you are under 18, you must have a parent or guardian sign for you" on membership agreements, etc - because the parent or guardian is the only one capable of entering into a contract. Similarly, since "between two people" isn't changing, polygamy isn't affected, either.

What this also would mean is that the religious institution of marriage and the legal union of people would become completely distinct concepts. And that means, for instance, that mormons who wish to be polygamous may do so - they may marry as many people as they wish... but as far as the state is concerned, they may only be in a civil union with one of them. And if some oddball wants to marry their dog, they may do so... but the state won't recognise it, and the laws against bestiality still apply just as much as usual. And if someone wants to marry the love of their life, but are not interested in legal recognition, they may have a religious marriage and not a civil union. Indeed, it would be possible for person A to marry person B, but to be in a civil union with person C, instead.