Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US

My opponent has, for one or another reason, disappointingly and unfortunately forfeited her second round. If I had known that she would just forfeit, I wouldn't have challenged her to this debate in the first place. Anyway, I extend my arguments and hope that she comes back and engages in what is left of this debate.Now, since Con forfeited her second round, I would like to use this round to refute two common arguments made by gay-marriage proponents. These two arguments comes from the idea of “rights” and are used many times to support the belief that gay-marriage should be legal in the US. However, as we will now see, both of these arguments are failures. 1) Marriage is a fundamental human rightThis argument is merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Moreover, proponents of this argument must also answer and justify how gay-marriage is fundamental human right, and why gay-marriage is a fundamental human right.I agree that marriage is a fundamental human right, but I however strongly disagree that gay-marriage is a fundamental human right. Why? Because it goes against what the term ”marriage” really means and really is. You cannot argue that gay-marriage is a fundamental ”human right”, unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that gay-marriage is a fundamental ”human right”. Maybe heterosexual marriages is but not gay-marriages, because gay-marriages goes against what marriage actually is and why it is at all recognized legally by the state. The goal of marriage is the continuation of the society (procreation). Only heterosexual marriages fulfil this goal. Gay-marriages do not.2) Not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their rightsAccording to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”. First, this argument is also merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Again, you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because not legalizing it deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”, unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”. Just like it can't, for example, be said that not allowing me to become the president of the United States deprives my ”rights”. To say that would be illogical since I don't qualify as the president of the United States to begin with. Thus, no “rights“ are being deprived from me by not allowing me to become the president of the United States.Secondly, proponents of this argument must also successfully answer: 1) How gay-marriage is a “right“.2) Why gay-marriage is a “right“.3) And why gays should be given this “right“ to marry each other in the first place.If these three questions isn't successfully answered, then what rights is the homosexuals deprived of? You can't say that someone is deprived of their rights when those rights doesn't even exist. So proponents of this argument must first prove that such a “right“ even exist.This argument is simply just assuming that gay-marriage is a “right“ of the homosexuals without first proving that such a “right“ even exist. Moreover, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Thus, there is no discrimination against gays and no rights are being deprived from them, because “gay-marriage“ doesn't exist and because the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with. In order to claim that gays are deprived of their “rights“ by not allowing them to marry, you have to first change the meaning of “marriage“ to include a relationship between two males too. However, what are the state's interests in recognizing and legalizing a relationship such as a “two males relationship“ as marriage to begin with? What does the society as a whole benefit from doing that? Very little. And again, marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. This is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage, because it recognises that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society.It is now Con's job to prove that this view of marriage is wrong in order to successfully change the meaning of “marriage“ to include a relationship between two males too, because according to my view of marriage (which is called the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage) gay relationships cannot qualify as real marriages to begin with. Thus, to say that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their “rights“, is absurd and invalid. Well, until Con have refuted the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage and given us a rational reason as to why we should believe in another view of marriage, and why the US should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing marriages in accordance to that view. We have already seen that the revisionist view of marriage is illogical, invalid, and cannot in any way be better or more rational than the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage. And nor can the revisionist view of marriage be considered a good reason as to why the US at all should have an interest in recognising and legalizing gay-marriage.ConclusionAll my arguments stands completely unrefuted and Con have not given even one reason/argument as to why gay-marriage should be legal in the US.The resolution remains affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US