Gay Marriage

Bisexual: Attracted to both sexes. Pansexual: Attracted to all genders and sexualitys. Marital tax reduction: reduction or complete removal of taxes on assets passed from one to their spouse. Insurance benefits: This has many meanings, but in this argument I will refer to this term as being able to share plans with lower rates than two separate ones and other benefits that apply to a married couple and not to a un-married one. Traditional marriage: marriage between a man and a woman and sometimes between a man and many women (this is using the old testaments definition). Separation between church and state: a term referring to separation between religion and government, not necessarily Christianity. Gay marriage is in no way morally wrong, and can infarct have many positive effects on the society. I would go as far to say that any modern, first world society, is morally obligated to allow couples of the same sex to marry, especially in locations where marriage comes with benefits (and it most often does, at least in the majority of western first world nations). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual (+) people deserve to be allowed to marry the same sex, both to uphold personal/family traditions and to get access to the benefits that go along with being legally married in whatever country they may be in. Benefits that range widely from marital tax reduction to insurance benefits (and many more, depending on the country in which the married couple is living in). Gay marriage does not personally harm anyone else. In the bible and many other religious texts, sex between a man and a man is a sin and frowned upon, but this does not necessarily mean marriage between a man and a man is a sin (this is likely because most religious texts didn't even address marriage between two people other than a man and a woman/women). Even if you could make the religious argument that non-traditional marriage is considered a direct sin, that does not mean you can outlaw it. Their are many things considered illegitimate or sinful by religious texts (mainly the new and old testaments) that we allow in this country. As times change so must we. As long as gay marriage doesn't immediately affect a person (which it doesn't) it should be allowed. Also legally, in any country with separation between church and state, religion should not effect the governments laws (other than religious freedom which would not relate to two other people doing something your religion frowns upon). I do understand that most first world western nation's governments were formed with religious influence; in the US judeo-christian ideals influenced freedom documents, and in Europe the Church influenced many nations constitutions and other laws and texts, but the intent of most governments was to have separation between church and state. With gay marriage legal the US government would be able to lower income taxes and the economy would greatly benefit. In New York City after legalizing gay marriage the government reaped 259 million dollars in licensing fees and other wedding related spending. With this extra money for the government it would be able to lower taxes or put the money towards paying the national debt (it wouldn't pay for it completely, not even close, but it could still help). The money spent on the wedding itself would also add to local economies/the economy in general. Businesses and people would be employed for the wedding, money would obviously be spent either back into local economies or into the larger economy/s (of state, national, or anything else). Due to this being a first argument I am not going to start rebutting things that I assume you will say, so I will end this here.