Heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to

Unfortunately, it looks as though my opponent has forfeited. I will procede to summarize the entire debate as well as provide further arguments as I have strong position on the matter and the point of my debate is to move the voter against state recognized gay marriage. Debate Brief:First off we found the grounds to why heterosexual marriage is benefitted in the first place. We understood that it was through procreation and rearing children which benefitted the state so in turn the state encourages it. Secondly, I argued that benefitting gay marriage hurts society through devaluing traditional marriage. I logically deduced that people would procreate less, get married less, or divorce more as the purpose of marriage becomes blurred by the society of the state because gay marriage directly and fundamentally defies procreation (unlike infertile marriage who only indirectly defies procreation since it is only an extraordinary occurence that prevents them from procreation). My opponet then agreed with me that homosexual couples do nothing for the state as a whole, but then listed adoption as maybe one of the benefits. However no facts were presented in support of what I presume to be mere opinions. I rebuted her arguments with statistics to show that gay couples were not needed in adoption as there is soundly many more infertile couples looking to adopt then there are available children. I also presented the anaology of the working man. If one man provides benefits of work and the other man does not, would you not give the benefits of pay to the one who works and not to the one who does not work? I would like to further this by saying, if you gave both the men these benefits, wouldn't the one who works begin to quit working? I also presented another argument which argued that homosexual marriage violates the natural right of children as children have a right to both a mother and a father as that is how they naturally come about. I argued that allowing homosexual couples to adopt would defy the very purpose for adoption. I did this by logically concluding that having such principles as a state would further blurr the purpose of rearing children and would lead to more divorce or situations where the family splits up and a child becomed reared by only one or neither parents which would obviously lead to a lack of development into a child compared to a family that has stayed together. And in my opinion those were the highlights of the debate. So again, since we still have not concluded any ways that gay marriage benefits the state I would refer to my working man analogy. Clearly we can see that heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to. Further commentary: Lastly I would like to further argue against homosexual state recognized marriage. This will not exactly be factual but I believe I will present strong arguments. Many times we hear the homosexual unions claim "love wins" but that is entirely false. What has won is not love, what has won is infatuation or lustful desire. By promoting heterosexual marriage the state sends a message to its society that we should love everyone who is part of the state and not just those whom we desire. The state says that we should love everyone equally but only that we should marry someone who it is proper for someone to procreate with. Not with someone we only love. Afterall, I love my mother, I love my father, I love my sister, I love my guy best friend, I love my dog, however that does not mean I should marry any of them. Rather, I should marry someone in which it is proper for me to procreate with. With the state starts sending such a message we can further see that the state would become united. If the state sends a message that we should only love those that we become infatuated with we will not see a state united but I would argue that we would see a state divided as we have already concluded previously that many families would become devided especially as they lose their sense on what the purpose of marriage is for.