Same Sex Couple Raising A Child

Children born naturally of a mother and father do matter in this debate. .. : "In conjunction with the definitions of natural right [upon which you based/worded the resolution] and natural law. .. and is thus best for the child' [when it comes to rearing]. "" The resolution is "A child should be allowed to be raised by a same sex couple. This is not a violation of a natural right. " I did agree that being born from a mother and father is a natural law and it would be impossible for the child to exist without the mother and father and in that sense, having two biological parents is best for the child. Once the child is born they do not necessarily need their biological parents anymore. Babies will accept breast milk from another woman who is able to provide breast milk, so breastfeeding is hardly an issue. (. http://www.at-home-with-mama.com...) "A democracy is not exactly a "dictatorship of the majority," let alone in this context. True, the two points you made are good points and I admit I jumped the gun when typing that. I was just trying to get the point across that not everybody gets exactly what they want in a democratic system. "I am not sure from what source, if any, you quoted that statement or deduced that thought. " Well I quoted it from you, and you quoted it from Black's Law Dictionary. This is exactly what you said: "Natural Right: A right that is conceived as part of natural law and that is therefore thought to exist independently of rights created by government or society, such as the right to life, liberty, and property. " "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. " So you acknowledge that there is a link between natural law and constitutional law. Constitutional law is based (not solely) on natural law and natural law is independent of constitutional law. I said they aren't be completely separate, and so as long as there is the USA and other countries with constitutions, the two are linked and are not separate (I can't see the fall of society or the implementation of anarchism in a stable nation anytime soon. ) When I mean linked I don't mean interdependent though. "Human rights and their violations existed well before any group was formed to express or regulate them. " Yea, obviously. Just because those rights are observed and written down, that doesn't mean that the material written down is obsolete and should be ignored. If I observe and say "the colour red is red," and write it down, that doesn't make it untrue. The authors of the UDHR merely observed and recorded human rights. "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. " I didn't say the UDHR was created by government or society. I said they were passive observations of the world, a "universalized conception of human nature," if you will. They (the UN) recorded things how they naturally saw them occur. "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. " Of course not. I never said they created natural law. I did say that they recorded it though. They never did "steal the essence of natural law. " They attempted to define it as it was, not change it. "But if you consider this document as binding over that representation, then that democratic system evaporates. " I don't. I never said I did. "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). " A few definitions from Merriam-Webster. All: every member or individual component of (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Universal: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributive without limit or exception (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Human: having human form or attributes; a bipedal primate mammal (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)(http://www.merriam-webster.com...) To not apply the Universal (applies to everyone) Declaration of Human (bipedal primate mammal) Rights to homosexuals would be to say that they are not human beings. The Declaration either applies to everyone or nobody, and I don't think that there would be a declaration for all humans that doesn't apply to any humans. Regarding the four qualities, those aren't limits, but examples. OK, let's see if I fit the criteria: Full Age - Check Race - Check Nationality - Check Religion - Ummm. .. No. I don't have a religion. So that means I can't start a family? I don't think so. A homosexual couple is able to reach full age (they are human, after all), have a race (again, they are human) and were born in some country somewhere so they have a nationality. They fit only three of the criteria and so do I. The only difference between us is our sexual orientation, which doesn't change anything. "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. " See above. "This sub-article means that one cannot be forced to marry against his or her will. " Yes, but it says spouses, and the definition of spouses is not gender specific, it can apply to a homosexual married couple just as easily as a heterosexual married couple. Your "Four Points To Consider" A) Definitions of words change over time B) But still marriage nonetheless C&D) M-W Defines traditional as "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom. )" In China, during the Ming Dynasty, it was tradition for females to enter mutual contracts in elaborate ceremonies, as would men. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) This was a tradition. Definitions of words change. "But gays cannot naturally be the generation of that family. " "No offense, but your preferred wording of the definition of "fundamental" does not affect/change its actual definition" My definition doesn't discriminate between origins and genders. "So can another heterosexual couple, which better upholds natural law. " I would say that, on adoption, on average, they can do an equal job at raising children. Gays are humans and are the same as heterosexual people (despite orientation). Just because they are gay doesn't mean they will do a worse job of raising children. "Heterosexuals who adopt. .. " Yes but they can accidentally have children easier, via irresponsible sex. Homosexuals are humans too, and can raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple can. They cannot conceive a child, but that is outside the scope of the debate, as adoption is the issue. Anyone can form a family, regardless of race, religion, orientation etc. .. . The UDHR applies to everyone, and to think otherwise is absurd. It really comes down to what's best for the child. I believe that same sex adoption is an equally valid method of child raising. With that, I end my half of the debate (I would do more, but character limit is an issue. ) I thank PitBull for the debate and the audience for their time.