Gay marriage should be legalized (in all states)

I sincerely apologize for my absence the last round. If you care to know, it was due to schoolwork. Having said this, I will move on to the actual debate. I would first like to make a comment on my opponent's observation of the resolution. He states that the "should" in the resolution "implies that all states have a moral obligation to legalize gay marriage. " However, considering the context and topic of the debate, "should" ought to be considered in the legal or political sense. This is the context in which most other changes in laws are considered. Nevertheless, my opponent's arguments are can still be considered in this sense I will first present my arguments for the negative position. Then I will show how my opponent's arguments are unsound. Contention 1: The benefits of gay marriage do not outweigh its costs Marriages cost the government money. This is because the spouses in a marriage are allowed multiple, costly benefits including, quoting doctoral student in financial economics Adam Kolasinsk, "collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy. " (. http://www.freerepublic.com...) Why? Because the state has a major interest in marriage: the procreation of the society. The state, in effect, gives spouses a "subsidy" because they are likely to continue the procreation of society. Under my opponent's logic, love seems to be the legal basis for marriage. While this may be necessary, to believe that this alone is sufficient is ridiculous. If my opponent's logic is true, the indebted, recession-stricken government of the United States of America would be spending money for the 4,698,000 people that get married every year simply because they love each other! Having established the fact that marriages are costly to the state because they help procreate society, the reason for rejecting gay marriage becomes obvious: it does not procreate society! (I am aware that one may present a counterexample of marriage that goes against my logic. However, I will respond to this objection only if it is presented. ) Criticism of Opponent's Arguments Criticism of Contention 1 This contention rests on the truth of the claim that "gay marriage is harmless. " I have already shown this to be false because it costs the state money unnecessarily. Criticism of Contention 2 This contention rests on the truth of the claim that "people have the right to marry the person they love. " This claim is also false. For example, I may be in love with my sister, but I cannot marry her. This is because the state does not have an interest in supporting incestuous relationships. In the same way, the state does not have an interest in supporting sterile relationships. Criticism of Contention 3 This contention rests on the truth of the claim that, if gay marriage is not allowed, homosexuals must "life as an unhappy single, or life in an unhappy heterosexual marriage. " This claim is obviously false. My opponent must know that there are gay people who, though not married, don't live life as an unhappy single or in an unhappy heterosexual marriage but live in relationships that they enjoy. Having presented my own argument and showing that my opponents arguments are unsound the only rational vote now is CON. Thank You