Gay marriage is not a civil right

I'm going to go through my opponent's argument quickly, before finally restating my position.Firstly, though, I'd like to state that one should not be convinced that rounds two and three were justified because he was stating the facts to justify his arguments. Ignoring the misnaming of the fallacy being committed (It would probably be a blind assertion fallacy, but certainly not naturalistic fallacy), if we accept his justification, then what he has done was set out to convince us that the law in its current state in America does not grant SSM as a civil right. Firstly, I stated in R1 that this is true, and is assumed in the debate: therefore, the 'justification' for this is completely pointless. If I were to give an equivalent, i'll use the analogy of the Socrates argument. Imagine if we were to set out whether Socrates is mortal. I may use the syllogism "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal" and state this in the first round. My opponent may respond by saying "agreed, and I concede that All men are mortal, for the purpose and ethos of the debate. I shall dispute whether Socrates is a man". If I then spend two rounds setting out whether all men are mortal, this would evidently be completely irrelevant! However, I'd also like to point out that I said in R1 that this debate was to be debated by the title and R1 rules: therefore, as it was not set out, there is no geographical bias. My opponent seems to set out that, as he has shown it in America, it is therefore true. However, I pointed out this is a blatant disregard of the debate: I may show that in the Netherlands the government grants it as a civil right[1] or how there are no civil rights at all proven by Somalia[2]. Further, my opponent refers to something that can be as close to universal as possible: the UN charter. Well, in response I'd just post this, with accordance to article 16. Article 2:Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.[3]If my opponent distinguishes between straight and gay couple's right to marriage, then we have a problem: he's broken this charter. As we'd be defining marriage dependent on sex, or dependent on their status of orientation, then we've broken this charter. However, this is irrelevant to the motion still: It was clearly set out in the primary post that this debate was on a should not an is. If it were an is, as in whether it is in regards to the current law, my opponent would have defined a geographical parameter, otherwise i can claim that it is because Netherlands against it is because some parts of America. Thus, I interpreted as a policy debate. My opponent seems to agree. However, the actual statement that I have misinterpreted the debate for all rounds until this most recent of posts suggests moreso that he has not read any of my actual argument, but simply posted from another source (wink wink, nudge nudge).Now, to move on.Traditional view of marriageMy opponent claims that he is not saying marriage is for procreation, but marriage is for accodomating procreation. This doesn't challenge my point: procreation includes IVF and surrogacy, which can be done by those in a same-sex cohabitation. As they are just as good at being married (proven in a previous round, not questioned) and actually worse if forced to cohabitate and not marry (my opponent stated this), then my opponent should be supporting same-sex marriage. In addition, I agree that marriage can be used in Kantian ethics to "accomodate procreation" in the same way that marriage can be used to "accodomate stealing" or "accomodate paying less money". It's evident that my opponent sees marriage in a Machiavellian, not Kantian, way. He is using marriage as a tool to use people as a means to his end: a clear and gross breaking of Kantian morality. Also, my opponent's traffic light analogy: traffic lights don't use people as a means. It's quite hard for them to. We use traffic lights as a means to remind people a car is coming. Rational people would always stop at red, except in the most rare of circumstance (I'm thinking the film Speed scenario), showing that the traffic light is a legitimate moral device. By comparison, marriage is implemented by the state to accomodate procreation, which is a nice way of saying getting us to have more children. This is using people as a means to an end. This is clearly immoral. And as my opponent has accepted Kantian ethics, I hope he understands how this follows. I'd also like to point out that Kantianism is political morality: it's used for creating moral legislation. Thus, its application is just.What principles of marriage, same sex marriage removes:I'd like to go over this one more time: Marriage, the massive consensus of scholars, polls, and field specialists agree come down to two main principles: secure, official, state recognised union; and a strong, stable foundation to childrearing. Other, more right-wing promoters, add procreation to the list. I have shown before how that is problematic. DemocracyI have referred to California, Britain, France, and Germany resectively. Each want SSM. The california specifically involves showing 5 polls as of last year, with 1 showing anti-SSM. My opponent, in response, states that because of, and there's no getting around this, one poll - which is well considered to have been bought by the Catholic and religious community[4]. The truth is, in one heavily propagandised poll in one area does not outwiegh dozens more polls in many more areas. Immediate effects of the legalisationWhat are the immediate effects? Well, I can simply say the obvious: the proper following of the UN charter, the promotion of freedoms and liberties, etc. but the most interesting one, I think, is the increased knowledge.The point was brought about traditional values not being able to be updated. I wish to state that by legalising SSM, we can make people more open minded. The inverse slippery slope shows that legalising SSM gives more insight to whether it is a good idea to continue legalise it or not[5]. It is more commonly known as a moratorium. By taking a cautious approach, we limit information. Any arguments making empirical, justified claims against the legalisation of SSM is pure speculation for any given region until we test the hypotheses put forth. To make the claims against SSM justified, we need to legalise it to test them. Hence, we have good reason to legalise SSM.Further, economically, it is a bad idea. The gay marriage ban actually costs more than it saves. This is a severly problematic issue. To conclude...I have shown through democracy, morality, and economically that SSM is a good idea. I also have shown the more robust definitions of marriage. Finally, and arguably most importantly, I have shown why it should be a civil right: that what was agreed in R1, which was "for acceptance and rules (and definitions)". I await for my opponent's response.1 - http://www.thedailybeast.com...;2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...;3 - http://www.un.org...;4 - http://prop8voterinfo.blogspot.co.uk...; & http://www.examiner.com...5 - Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments, by Thomas Douglas6 - http://www.debate.org...