The Instigator
kukupser
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
USAPitBull63
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Same Sex Couple Raising A Child

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,743 times Debate No: 9238
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

kukupser

Pro

This debate is a challenge to USAPitBull63. In a forum (http://www.debate.org...), PitBull says: "That said, on moral grounds (on whether or not such a law should exist), a child does have a natural right to (be raised by) a mother and a father, and by allowing gay in-vitro fertilization/adoption, that right is potentially violated."

Resolution: A child should be allowed to be raised by a same sex couple. This is not a violation of a natural right.

Both Pro and Con will have equal BOP, each side attempting to justify their stance while providing counterarguments to their opponent's claims.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (http://www.un.org...) A same sex couple could easily provide these and not violate any rights set out in the UDHR.

With that, I turn it over to PitBull. I hope he accepts and I look forward to a good debate.
USAPitBull63

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
kukupser

Pro

Thank you PitBull for accepting this debate. 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.
USAPitBull63

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
kukupser

Pro

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. It was a fun debate and I learned lots.
USAPitBull63

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by USAPitBull63 8 years ago
USAPitBull63
Thank you for the constructive criticism. Even yours, JBlake. ;-)
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
What a hard RFD to write....

I STRONGLY disagree with CON's position...but he did do a better job in this debate...

Before and After : PRO
Conduct : TIE, neither side was particularly rude.
S&G : CON - PRO's argument was hard to read.
Arguments : CON - Pro ignored a lot of CON's points and CON continued to develop these points in subsequent rounds.
Sources : TIE.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Con:
Very strong and well formatted argument. A wrong argument, but a strong one ;)
Good job.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Advice to Pro:
Try to develop a clearer format with better flow. Forcing the reader to stop every paragraph and re-read something that we already read is harmful to your overall argument. If you must address your opponent, try to do so without interrupting your flow. I suggest perusing the list of top debaters and see how they write and respond. Improving this aspect should significantly improve your debating.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Conduct:
Tie - Both sides remained courteous.

Sp/Gr:
Con - Pro's style of "quote" respond is not easy to read. It is difficult to find his points, and it actually harms his ability to respond to the larger theses advanced by Con.

Arguments:
Con - While I vehemently disagree with Con's position, he nonetheless performed better in this debate. Pro largely ignored the central thesis of Con's argument (that since children are naturally born to a mother and a father, they have a natural right to be raised by a mother and a father). There are many suitable responses to this fallacious claim. Unfortunately, Prol chose to ignore it rather than respond. Point goes to Con.

Sources:
Tie - Although sources on this topic abound, neither side chose to utilize them.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by nofearof0 7 years ago
nofearof0
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Paris 7 years ago
Paris
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by newman 7 years ago
newman
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by 1-2-3 7 years ago
1-2-3
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by USAPitBull63 7 years ago
USAPitBull63
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sexyteodoro 7 years ago
sexyteodoro
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 8 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 8 years ago
dogparktom
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
kukupserUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04