Same Sex Couple Raising A Child

Children born naturally of a mother and father do matter in this debate, as I stated in my constructive: "[I]n conjunction with the definitions of natural right [upon which you based/worded the resolution] and natural law . . . because a child is naturally conceived via a mother and a father (a ‘physical law of nature'), that structure best fits the ‘universalized conception of human nature or divine justice' and is thus best for the child' [when it comes to rearing]." As to your hypothetical "plebiscite" example, I already said I'm in favor of states rights/legislating the issue through ballot initiatives. A democracy is not exactly a "dictatorship of the majority," let alone in this context. (1) Most dictatorships don't allow legitimately free elections (if elections at all) to possibly unravel their established power structure. (2) In legitimate democratic elections (e.g., Canada and USA), recounts would likely take place; and if similar results are found, the issue would likely be voted on again in a special/future election. If voters don't like the result, they can raise another ballot initiative next election, which would only be a year away, or sooner. You said: "Natural rights are also ‘THOUGHT to exist independently of rights created by government or society,' they are not absolutely separate. How can they be?" I am not sure from what source, if any, you quoted that statement or deduced that thought. But any link between constitutional law and natural law usually exists because legal systems are based on concepts of right and wrong, whether by moral or utilitarian context; in other words, natural laws precede most constitutional laws. Even if such constitutional law was dismantled, natural law would remain; thus, its independence. As I pointed out in my opening argument, "Human rights and their violations existed well before any group was formed to express or regulate them." As for the alleged authority of the UDHR: Again, as per the definitions of natural right/law—which you have not rejected (and thus, have accepted as standing)—such rights "exist independently of rights created by government or society." They do not exist "dependent upon the UDHR and its revisions." You've essentially just ignored that which you tried to interpret in your last argument. The United Nations is not the author of natural law; its magistrates are not the universal arbiters of that which precedes and influences constitutional law. No arbitrary group or organization can steal the essence of natural law from itself. Furthermore, articles 8, 19, 21, and 28 of the UDHR support states-rights legislation. Yet if this document supersedes democratic elections, then it essentially contradicts itself at least four times. You even said in your first rebuttal, "And everybody has the chance to represent themselves in a democratic system by voting." But if you consider this document as binding over that representation, then that democratic system evaporates. Regarding your Article 1 argument: Article 16 limits itself specifically to four stated criteria (full age, race, nationality, religion)—none of which is gender/sexual orientation—as the only qualifications against which marriage cannot be withheld. This implies that those four qualifications provide exceptions to the Declaration's own rule (specifically Article 1, as you allege). If you don't accept this contradiction, then you must accept that this document is, as it currently stands, too ambiguous/vague to adequately address this issue. Regarding your Article 16, sub-article 2 argument and definition of "spouse": (1) Being as sub-article 1, which was not revised in sub-article 2, explicitly qualifies the only four qualifications against which marriage cannot lawfully be withheld—this document serves again to be either self-incompatible or irrelevant to this issue. (2) This sub-article means that one cannot be forced to marry against his or her will. (3) Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines marriage as: "1a(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Definition "1a(2)" reads: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of traditional marriage. " Four points to consider: (A) The first definition originated in the 14th century; the second, only after pockets of legal systems began recognizing same-sex marriage within the past few decades. (B) 1a(2) has an addendum that it only applies to the term "same-sex marriage." (C) The definition of "same-sex marriage" even excludes itself from "traditional marriage" saying that, at best, it is "like that of traditional marriage." (D) Lastly, the fact that heterosexual marriage is "traditional" recognizes it as that more closely connected to the "universalized conception of human nature or divine justice" and thus, to natural law, which best upholds natural rights. You said: "Article 16 (3) . . . does not, however, define family." Yes, it does. In fact, that is half of its purpose. And in my constructive argument, I explained how that best applies—under the definitions of natural right/law—to a heterosexual-mother-and-father-based unit. Regarding your M-W definition-of-"family" argument: You're getting away from the focus of the resolution, which is a child's natural right, as per natural law. Adoption was the cornerstone of the thread that inspired your challenge to this debate anyway; so my examples/supports of how my case better upholds natural rights of children, as per the true definitions of natural rights and natural law, pertain to when the child is not the biological creation of her custodial mother and father. You said: "A same sex parent family can still generate and contribute to society. I think a more fitting definition [of fundamental] would be ‘of central importance'." (1) But gays cannot naturally be the generation of that family. (2) No offense, but your preferred wording of the definition of "fundamental" does not affect/change its actual definition. Regarding your homosexuality-is-natural/penguins point: (1) We're focusing on human beings, as I've explicitly stated throughout the debate. (2) Until a human being can naturally, without artificial intervention, reproduce asexually or homosexually—same-sex reproduction and rearing of children (which is at issue here, not merely homosexuality per se) is scientifically unnatural. You said: "A same sex couple can provide the exact same comfort, love and protection to a child that a heterosexual couple can." (1) But they cannot provide a natural rearing environment (for penguins or humans), which is central to the definitions of natural right/law. (2) So can another heterosexual couple, which better upholds natural law. Regarding your point about gay rearing (don't laugh) vs. hetero rearing (continue not laughing): (1) It is just as possible that gays would: not have steady income; be ill-educated; or be inadequate parents. (2) Heterosexuals who adopt, or who artificially inseminate themselves, have to consider procedures and consequences just as much as homosexuals in the same position. Only, as nature has indicated, they naturally make a more appropriate fit for the impending child. As Con best upholds natural rights/law, I urge a CON vote.