Pick your own issue.

The topic will be Gay Marriage.My position is that the state should leave Gay marriage unrecognized.What is marriageFor this debate, I will use this rather open definition of marriage: Marriage - A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts http://www.google.com...The first question we have to ask ourselves is why the state should recognize any social union. The obvious reason in this case would be procreative ability, along with other more subtle reasons. The state recognizes this union by providing them licences and special community along with civil recognition. Couples with marriage licences also will recieve a handful of benefits, including:Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatmentReceiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.And many more in the link (1)So the state recognizes this unique union of two persons with procreative ability with quite a few tax benefits. Now lets deal with the topic at hand; Gay marriage.If the state were to recognize gay marriage, it would literally be pouring money into something that would create nothing for the state, much like the union between me and my clothing, television, or postage stamp collection (2). Now, it would seem rather silly for the state to give me all of these benefits just because I desired a union between me and whatever I would like for the sake of happiness. So, gay marriage shouldn't be recognized unless my opponent can answer the following question:Why should the state recognize something (Gay marriage) if it does not stand to benefit from it.This can be answered in two possible ways:Directly answer the question.Show how the government would benefit from recognizing homosexual union.I do expect he will answer it in the second way.Around this point, I still have around 5,500 characters left. So I will presume some of your arguments and present the slipery-slope argument.Should infertile couples be allowed to have marriage licences? Realistically, no. The state doesn't benefit from an infertile married couple. However, who decides who is infertile? Should the government preform checks on each individual who desires a marriage licences? Of course not. It would be incredibly expensive, much more than it would cost for the state to just let them marry anyways, and dehumanizing.Gay people do benefit the government; they take children out of foster care. This is absolutely true. Except this argument forgets the entire reason of state recognized marriage and perverts it. Marriage is for procreation. Another union can be initiated for couples who want these same benefits by adopting. (Like, a civil union?)Even if the government did recognize a gay marriage for it's adopting ability, shouldn't the government require gay couples to adopt immediately? Or if it became appearent that there are no children in foster care, should the government stop recognizing gay marriage? Either way, this isn't a very convincing point.Slippery-slope?Lets legalize gay marriage, simply because two people who consent desire the government to recognize it. Then we should also recognize polygamous marriage, because those persons also desire the government to recognize it. What if two brothers want to be married? It isn't as if their incestual practice will result in demon offpsring anymore. Shouldn't we have their marriage recognized as well? Then what about heterosexual incestual siblings? Under the 14th amendment they have equal protection like their homsexual counterparts. Then we end up legalizing all incestual marriages.So homosexual marriage would lead to the marriage of widely accepted awful things, such as incest and polygamy. Ok I'm done now.