Same Sex Couple Raising A Child

"Once . . . born [children] 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." (1) Being as you made "natural right" part of the resolution, using that as a parameter of this debate is imperative. It is the standard upon which the first part of the resolution is conditional. I've already connected my argument specifically to how/why Pro violates a child's natural right, in accordance to natural law (both definitions that you've accepted). (2) Also, this isn't about whether or not a child can survive without a mother and father; it is about whether or not the State "should" defer to heterosexual/natural parents when appointing surrogate parents to raise children, regarding a child's natural rights. You have yet to adequately attack my connection between a child's conception, birth, and its rearing. (3) Citing that source is all fine and good, but it doesn't refute my arguments or dismiss their direct connection to this debate. It just evidences a line of reasoning (kids can survive without a mother and father) not in keeping with the resolution. "True, the two points you made are good points and I admit I jumped the gun when typing that." I'm glad you now agree with Con's analysis. "Well I quoted it from you, and you quoted it from Black's Law Dictionary. This is exactly what you said. . . ." Duh to me, yes. That said, at least I didn't refute the statement itself, but rather elucidated on it. "So you acknowledge that there is a link between natural law and constitutional law." I said any such link is a conditional one, not inherently causal. "Just because [natural] rights are observed and written down, that doesn't mean that the material written down is obsolete and should be ignored. The authors of the UDHR merely observed and recorded human rights." (1) But there are more human rights than those clearly articulated within that document, as I've shown throughout the debate. That is the primary reason why this document is rendered irrelevant, on this particular issue, by ambiguity/vagueness. (2) But I've also shown how, even if one accepts this document (despite its own contradictions of possible application to this issue) as legitimate, it supports Con's argument over Pro's. "I didn't say the UDHR was created by government or society." Okay, but history did. The UDHR itself does; as does its web site; as do the web sites about the document that you've provided. "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." And that's what a government/society does in articulating legal systems. So basically, there, you just said it. "I never said [U.N.] created natural law. I did say that they recorded it though. They attempted to define it as it was, not change it." (1) You proposed the UDHR as your legal authority on natural rights. Judging by this fact, and your arguments, you acknowledge its creation as binding articulation of natural law. (2) Perhaps the U.N. did not attempt to "change" natural law, but in neglecting to clearly articulate necessary conditions of natural rights (like this one)—it renders itself an insufficient authority on this issue. " ‘But if you consider this document as binding over that representation, then that democratic system evaporates.' I don't. I never said I did." (1) Hence, "If...." (2) I'm glad Pro now agrees with Con that localized/state governments should let its citizens legislate this issue, rather than using any deference to the UDHR, which Pro originally and consistently (throughout this debate) cited as an authority. "To not apply the [UDHR] to homosexuals would be to say that they are not human beings. The Declaration either applies to everyone or nobody…." (1) Con does not advocate denying the UDHR to homosexuals; rather, because the UDHR is an insufficient source for upholding the natural rights of a child—as Con has demonstrated throughout this debate—the State cannot use the UDHR as binding authority to allow homosexuals to adopt a child, let alone over heterosexual or natural/biological parents. (2) As I've shown, and which you have not refuted, articles 8, 19, 21, and 28 of the UDHR support states-rights legislation (like you do, as of your final rebuttal); therefore, it supports other legal systems as more authoritative than itself. "Regarding the four qualities, those aren't limits, but examples. OK, let's see if I fit the criteria: I don't have a religion. So that means I can't start a family? I don't think so." As I've clearly expressed, those are unequivocally the four criteria by which you cannot, by the State, be denied marriage. So even if you did have religion, the UDHR says you can't be prevented from marriage just on those grounds. Too bad, for Pro's sake, it doesn't give the same flexibility to homosexuals. "A homosexual couple . . . fit[s] only three of the criteria and so do I. The only difference between us is our sexual orientation, which doesn't change anything." That fact doesn't refute any of my points. In fact, it upholds my observation that the UDHR clearly omits sexual orientation from its qualifications for denial of marriage. Therefore, that "only difference" between you is quite a significant one (at least, so says the UDHR). "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." But when the UDHR particularly omits gays from its own definition and parameters of marriage (as Con has detailed), it blocks your attempted connection. Regarding your counterarguments about the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage has not changed. Including a separate definition with it for easy classification doesn't change the original, as definition 1a(2) expresses. And the "traditional" I used was from the definition of "same-sex marriage" itself. "Just because they are gay doesn't mean they will do a worse job of raising children." Nor better. But natural law says we should defer to what's more natural for the child. Again, this isn't about how well a gay couple would love a child; but in keeping with natural rights of children and natural law, they should not be favored over heterosexuals by the state when appointing parents for children. "[Heterosexuals] can accidentally have children easier, via irresponsible sex." They can also make great parents. That said, you don't refute my examples of how gays can be just as irresponsible, unprepared, and uneducated custodians as hetero parents (even if the pregnancy is accidental). "Homosexuals . . . cannot conceive a child, but that is outside the scope of the debate, as adoption is the issue." It is not outside the scope of the debate, as Con has consistently shown, in direct correlation to human rights, upon which adoption decisions should abide. "Anyone can form a family, regardless of race, religion, orientation etc...." That doesn't remove a child's natural right, as per natural law, to a mother and father. "The UDHR applies to everyone, and to think otherwise is absurd." As Con has consistently shown, the UDHR is an insufficient document to be any authority on this issue; not only that, but Pro has conceded Con's point that this issue is better legislated by communities than by this inconsistent U.N. document. "It really comes down to what's best for the child." Your resolution implies that natural rights are best for a child; and Con has better and more consistently (than Pro) upheld those of children. Thanks again to kukupser for the invitation to debate this issue. I urge a CON vote.