Laws are also social constructs. You don't "need" laws like you "need" water.

Well, that was a bit unclear in my post, but I meant that the laws were there AS social constructs, in order to provide protection and, as stated, an equal playing ground.

Marriage is a social construct that receives tremendous legal protection, primarily because there are often children involved in families. And more gay couples than ever before are choosing to have children. You wouldn't say that they can't/shouldn't raise children, would you?

Oh lord no. As I stated above, the legal benefits are important, and highly prized by all - and should be given to anyone who seeks them, regardless of race/gender/sexual identity. I'm focusing on the aspects of religious marriage here. I did a poor job of making that clear though.

So why shouldn't they be allowed marriage instead of just civil unions if marriages are proven to be good for a child's development?

Now THAT'S more what I was trying to start a discussion on. Well, a few points, as this has provoked some real thought:

1.) Because when I say religious marriage, I'm referring to a ceremony and/or the recognition by the church of said ceremony and bond. While not religious myself, I can see the importance that it holds to many people. 2.) Because, quite frankly, I don't understand why any (gay) person would WANT a religious marriage - while certainly not all, large sects of religion will either actively or passively condemn it - any attempts to force acceptance/tolerance/treatment that someone does not wish to give seems slightly unfair, and very dangerous. 3.) This is the interesting part to me - although a bit hypothetical. Your post implies that civil unions and marriages are separate. I'm rather wondering what, if any, downsides there would be to merging the two - if a civil union was what everyone received a license to, and what it was referred to as, and marriage only referred to a religious ceremony.

This is a bit facetious, don't you think?

A bit, yes. I'll readily admit my flawed comparison skills.

Marriage and MENSA aren't comparable. The latter would not allow membership to the very large majority of the population. Discriminating against gay "marriage" is applicable to a minority of the population, and it's much more important than a MENSA membership.

Agreed, mostly, about the differences. It was simply the easiest way for me to compare the exclusions, although far from the best.