Same Sex Couple Raising A Child

I thank kukupser for the opportunity to debate this issue. I look forward to a fun and enlightening debate. Before addressing the resolution, I'll preliminarily address the forum thread (which my opponent linked above). 1.) I am not homophobic. My first comment (which preceded the "That said…" quote listed by my opponent) was that if a government already has legalized gay adoption/child custody laws in place—and a hypothetical law/court ruling/vote renders it illegal—gays with preexisting child custody rights should retain those rights (i.e., be "grandfathered" into the new system). The children should not be removed from their custody, as a result. 2.) I am personally for allowing states to legislate this issue; if the people feel it should be acceptable in their state, so be it. I wouldn't necessarily agree with the position, but I would accept it as fair precedent within the confines of our representative republic. 3.) Lastly, the original forum thread focused primarily on gay adoption; that same means/method of child-rearing will be the assumed basis for my arguments in this debate, being as the debate is modeled after said thread. Now the resolution, as constructed by my opponent: A child should be allowed to be raised by a same sex couple. This is not a violation of a natural right. Though this is a two-part resolution, I will address both parts inclusively, for the most part. First, some definitions, as articulated by Black's Law Dictionary: 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. Natural Law: (1) a physical law of nature. (2) 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. 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. And in this context, what is naturally best for the child is what "should be allowed." Also, the resolution defies any conditional scenarios, such as my previous example of letting states legislate their own adoption/custody systems. The resolution calls for a sweeping, unconditional inclusion—apparently on (at least) a national level—which limits public representation. 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. Finally, I will further address the second part of the resolution in response to Pro's example. 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. 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." And, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "fundamental: (1) serving as an original or generating source." That fundamental group unit/generating source, as decided by nature, is a mother and a father. I urge a CON vote.