Gay marriage is not a civil right

My opponent's entire argument for this round is pointless. It is evident due to the fact that he has simply copied and pasted from a previous argument (which breaks round 1, where I say no copying from any source for this precise reason). As I stated that this debate is a moral debate, the is makes no difference. My opponent did not object. My opponent's R3 ends though with "Now, I have established the "is" portion by showing that gay marriage "is" not a civil right." Thus, it is clear, and is an admissal, that his last two rounds have meant nothing to the debate. Until he actually states which arguments he did not mean is part of a 'proving' that it is a civil right, or not a civil right, all of his previous is pointless.Further, my opponent has dropped and conceded the democracy point. Therefore, this prima facie takes precedence, and negates the resolution.Also, I accept that the Declaration of Human Rights does not state that SSM is a right for the purpose of this debate (though I dispute this), because it is irrelevant. My opponent has simply made red herrings (and admitted it so) due to what he had ended his argument with. He states that he has some moral reasoning behind this, but it is yet to be seen. He has stated it is not discrimination, but I have not said this in the least: it is a red herring. I have not stated it is segregation. This is a red herring. I have not stated that it has a "separate but equal" problem. This is a red herring. My opponent has just misprepresented my case after misrepresenting my case. However, all these points are just defended by what the law says. He has simply said SSM currently is not a civil right. This is all a red herring. Due to this, I urge a conduct in my favour, due to this argument essentially being a complete drop, consisting of copy/paste on a different issue than what is raised. However, seeing as I have 6000 characters to extend my case, I wish to promote a new one altogether: an ethical approach. I want to promote a Kantian Ethic system.Kantian Ethics, created by Kant, uses 3 moral maxims to make all decisions. Firstly, that all actions should be universalised. Second, that all people should not be used as an ends, not a means. Thirdly, that we should therefore work towards a "kingdom of ends": a place where everyone is used as an ends, not a means.The argument in favour of Kantian ethics comes from intuition. We actually know intrinsically that we should not use people as a means to an end. When we think of the trolley problem:Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. When we look at this case, we have an inherent leaning towards not committing the injustice of sentencing the culprit to no punishment, and let action take it's course. Indeed, from this Harvard lecture (youtube video), we can see how the majority, when presented with a similar problem, choose the options where we don't kill people. Allowing people to die is justified over actually killing people due to the immorality of forcing and imposing our will onto others. We also later see how people in majority accept the universalisability principle. Thus, we can conclude that Kantian Ethics' founding premises hold true.Now, let us apply it here. How do we do so? We create a moral rule which can be applied in all circumstance (making it universalised) which is justified (not using others as a means only). For example, "We should punish murderers" may be justified because the ends is to punish a murderer, not to use murderers for punishment. But that is not enough to make it justified: it needs to be something that we do for duty's sake. We have duties like, for example, living in accordance with the moral maxims by being moral beings. Thus, by being moral autonomous agents, we need to live by moral maxims.Now we have established what Kantian Ethics is, we can actually get to the heart of the issue: do we morally promote SSM or not? Well, let's create some moral maxims and see how they run. My opponent (clearly in R2) wants to create a moral maxim where "Marriage should be justified for those who will procreate and create good homes for children". However, this moral maxim has problems: it legalises polgyamy when it is a good home for a child (compared to an orphanage), legalises SSM if they have IVF or surrogacy, and other problems. If we do a different moral maxim which is closer in line to what my opponent is putting forth: "Marriage is justified only for those who will naturally procreate and create a good home for a child". However, the nature problem is incredibly large: we remove all IVF and surrogacy for one, then we have to remove all of those who are adopted. But a larger problem is that natural procreation can occur for polygomy still, and we have an even larger problem.The only reliable solution is "Marriage is justified for those who want it". When marriage is allowed for all, we solve all of the problems. we still keep saying the actual statements themselves, such as paedophilia, are wrong, but the actual union itself seems to have no actual problems. But still, we need to add the previous necessity to create a construct for childrearing and stable relationships. With these, we have no problems for universalisation. "Marriage is justified for creating those who would be in a stable relationship with good childrearing". Each of these seem to create a system which is justified. The moral law means that things such as paedophilia are seen as wrong, but keeps IVF and surrogacy. It promotes the moral maxims of not using people as means, etcetera.To reiterate and state an obvious criticism: of the three attributes of marriage we want to promote: secure relationships, procreation, and childrearing. The first and third are promoted. But procreation, if generalised into being a necessity, means that morally we cannot legalise marriage for those who may be impotent. But moreso we cannot legalise marriage due to it simply being a means to populate. This is blatantly immoral, and a horribly Machiavellian view of the world.To conclude, all my criticisms from my previous argument stand. Further, Kantian ethics dictates that the moral course of action is to legalise SSM.