Same Sex Couple Raising A Child

I look forward to this debate. I'll start right away. Firstly, I would like to say that I respect your stance on this issue. You are very fair and thoughtful when it comes to an area that may be sensitive to many people. "Con's position regarding the first part of this resolution is not a condemnation of homosexuality; rather, in conjunction with the definitions of natural right 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. " True, being born by a mother and father is best for the child, or else they would not be a child. But that does not matter in this debate, as we are arguing about whether a same sex couple raising a child is best for the child. "The resolution calls for a sweeping, unconditional inclusion—apparently on (at least) a national level—which limits public representation. " Yes, on a national level, through a democratic system. Let me state a hypothetical situation: a new country is formed and there is a plebiscite on this issue and if 50.1% of the population says that same sex couples should be allowed to raise a child, then the government will allow same sex couples to adopt. And everybody has the chance to represent themselves in a democratic system by voting. "In keeping with the definition of natural law, perhaps the next-best representation of a "universalized conception of human nature" is localized democracy; and when the process of allowing people to decide/indicate their interpretations (or "conceptions") of human nature is removed from this process, then the process becomes flawed. " Again, everybody can decide/indicate their opinions in a democracy. A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority over the minority. No matter how small a scale democracy is, whether it be one person vs. two people, not everybody will be content. "Because the resolution regards "natural right[s]"—which, by definition, "exist independently of rights created by government or society"—I have no true burden to consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or its by-laws, relevant to this debate. Human rights and their violations existed well before any group was formed to express or regulate them. " You define a natural right as "part of a natural law" and natural law as "A philosophical system of legal and moral principles purportedly deriving from a universalized conception of human nature or divine justice rather than from legislative or judicial action; moral law embodied in principles of right and wrong. " So a natural right is derived from a natural law, which is a system of legal and moral principles. Natural rights are also "THOUGHT to exist independently of rights created by government or society," they are not absolutely separate. How can they be? Because a group of people codify human rights, a code based on morals, it is irrelevant? I don't see how. The UDHR is a universal document. Your definition of natural law is "moral principles deriving from a universalized conception of human nature. " The Declaration is a conception (or interpretation) of how they see humanity. I think this fits the definition of natural law. "Nevertheless, Article 16 of the document does state the following: "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion [no mention of sexual orientation], have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. " and "(3) The family is the natural [thus, natural rights pertain] and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "" Article 1 also says: "ALL human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. " All means everybody, regardless of their orientation. All people, no matter the orientation, have the right to found a family, by means of adoption or childbirth. Article 16 (2) also says: "Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. " Merriam-Webster defines spouse as: "married person" (no mention of gender)(. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Article 16 (3) does indeed say the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. It does not, however, define family. Merriam-Webster defines family as: 1) a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head 2) a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation 3) the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family 4) a group of persons of common ancestry (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In none of these definitions do they mention gender specific. Definition 3 says "two parents rearing their children. " It does not say "a mother and father raising a child they conceived. " Those two parents could be male or female and that child doesn't have to be their biological child at all. "That fundamental group unit/generating source, as decided by nature, is a mother and a father. " Webster defines fundamental as an original OR generating source. A same sex parent family can still generate and contribute to society. I think a more fitting definition would be "of central importance. " (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Homosexuality in nature has been observed in at least 1500 species throughout the world (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Also, there was a case of two male penguins who raised a baby penguin, from when it was an egg to childhood (. http://www.nytimes.com...). So to assume same sex relationships is unnatural is incorrect. A same sex couple can provide the exact same comfort, love and protection to a child that a heterosexual couple can. Children under the care of a same sex couple may look after a child better than a couple who, by means of irresponsible sex, had a child. The reason being is that the couple who accidentally had the child may not have be properly equipped and prepared to rear a child. They may be young, ill-educated or maybe they may not have a high enough income to support a child. I am not saying that all children accidentally conceived are unfit to be raised by their parents, I am saying it is a possibility. A same sex couple cannot accidentally adopt a child or accidentally have in In-Vitro fertilization procedure performed on them. They will be prepared to raise a child and have thought out all aspects and consequences of bringing a child into their home to start a family. Thank you for your time.