The Instigator
Jillianl
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Rinexe
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Homosexual civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are harmful to society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jillianl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,534 times Debate No: 14914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Jillianl

Con

I would argue that one's sexual orientation cannot and should not be considered inherently harmful in any situation. Therefore, if one chooses a partner based on their orientation, then that partnership cannot be considered harmful to society either depending on the respective genders of the couple.

If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples.

I would argue that the real harm to society cannot be determined by one's gender or sexual orientation. If pro happens to have any examples of how one's gender or orientation can harm society, I'm all ears.
Rinexe

Pro

I will start by stating a few definitions.
Harmful - causing or capable of causing harm
Harm - damage: the occurrence of a change for the worse
Society - an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.

The vagueness of this debate is the first thing I would like to point out. We cannot point out which society this debate relates to, so for the sake of argument, we shall say it pertains to the United States of America.

In order to win this debate, it will take a simple point, followed by a little counter to my opponents argument.

The majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, or, what they don't know what they are talking about, Civil Unions. Gallup did a poll, and as of 2009, 57 percent of people still oppose gay marriage. (1) So, what does this have to do with anything? Harmful is defined as causing or CAPABLE of causing harm, and it has already shown to be capable and causing. One simple church is proof of this. This church is known as Westboro Baptist Church, which is in state of rage over bans on gay marriage being lifted. Westboro Baptist Church has done many protests, many known to be violent, including a protest upon Heath Ledger's funeral. So, is it Westboro Baptist Church doing the harm? No, it would be the civil unions causing these protests, so called marriages, many would say. Society is define as an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization. America applies to this.

The culture of America, as I am sad to say, has always involved Christianity. I am not going into this debate on the side of Christianity, in fact, I am appalled by the majority so closed minded. However, this majority is against gay marriage (2). This is in fact doing damage to the American culture, which has in fact been against it since the first documented poll in 1955 (2). Just to put it in simple terms:
Gay Marriages/Civil Unions are causing uproar in the American Community. The Majority does not accept, and yet bills still pass legalizing it. The Society of America has been in fact damaged by an outer source, via going against the majority.

Now, I shall start acting against Con's argument.
First off, your argument appears to have little to do with the topic. You keep speaking of couples, and sexual orientations not being harmful. Though, you might be correct there, this does not have anything to do with the topic you have set. You ask if one's sexual orientation or gender harms society, but is the debate not over whether or not civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. I understand that a domestic partnership does involve a couple, but a couple that lives together, which you have failed to bring up.

Anther thing you argued.
"If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples."
This is also known as a logical fallacy. If you can provide any evidence that the combination of gender shows no effect, then I am all ears. However, without a male donor, or a female surrogate, you cannot reproduce. So, effectively, these combination of gender also cannot reproduce in order to continue the society through reproduction.

(1) http://www.gallup.com...
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com...

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Jillianl

Con

I accept your definitions of harm, and society and yes we can discuss the US. But here was my definition of harmful:

1. (adj) harmful
full of harm; injurious; hurtful; mischievous

I am not addressing whether or not civil unions or domestic partnerships have the potential to harm, but whether they in fact, do harm society.

"One simple church is proof of this. This church is known as Westboro Baptist Church, which is in state of rage over bans on gay marriage being lifted. Westboro Baptist Church has done many protests, many known to be violent, including a protest upon Heath Ledger's funeral. So, is it Westboro Baptist Church doing the harm? No, it would be the civil unions causing these protests, so called marriages, many would say."

So you blame the Westboro Baptist Church's violent protest on gay marriage? This makes no sense. The church can clearly do protests without violence (it's against the law to violently protest anyway) and then there would have been no harm done to anyone or anything. It is not the issue that did the harm, but the protesters making the conscious choice to protest violently instead of peacefully that caused harm. To link it to the ban on gay marriage being lifted is not logical.

The only logical conclusion is that people who protest violently (whatever the cause) are causing harm, which has nothing to do with how homosexual civil unions THEMSELVES cause harm. Maybe you did not understand what the argument was, or you distorted it to suit your purposes, because then any issue could be construed as harmful if there happened to be violent protesters.

" However, this majority is against gay marriage (2). This is in fact doing damage to the American culture, which has in fact been against it since the first documented poll in 1955 (2). Just to put it in simple terms:
Gay Marriages/Civil Unions are causing uproar in the American Community. The Majority does not accept, and yet bills still pass legalizing it. The Society of America has been in fact damaged by an outer source, via going against the majority."

Ok, let's play it this way. According to your earlier stats, 57% are against according to the latest poll from your source. So, this means at least 43% are for. So either way that the gov. rules, almost half of the population will be "outraged" and cause some sort of harm. I could equally argue that only allowing traditional marriage between a man and woman would outrage almost as many people which could cause harm. Does this mean the issue itself caused the harm? No, it is the choices the public makes about how to react that cause harm.

"First off, your argument appears to have little to do with the topic. You keep speaking of couples, and sexual orientations not being harmful. Though, you might be correct there, this does not have anything to do with the topic you have set. You ask if one's sexual orientation or gender harms society, but is the debate not over whether or not civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. I understand that a domestic partnership does involve a couple, but a couple that lives together, which you have failed to bring up."

I am sorry for the ambiguity. I intended for the pro person to come up with arguments about how two men or two women in a married relationship negatively affects families, or children, or how people think of marriage or something. You obviously took a totally different direction . . . and I really don't know what you mean by the last sentence. Isn't it generally known that a domestic partnership involves a couple that lives together who are both either male or female?

I ask about gender because civil unions are generally thought to be harmful because it is a union between two people of the same gender. Is this a little more clear?

""If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples."
This is also known as a logical fallacy."

Is it? I would consider it logical reasoning. Society is not affected by the genders of anyone, whether or not they are in a relationship. Perhaps how people act on that gender, or display that gender could affect society, but gender itself is neutral, just like having brown eyes or red hair.

" If you can provide any evidence that the combination of gender shows no effect, then I am all ears"

I did not intend to put the word combination in there to mean that the relational dynamics between a male and female do not affect society. I should've written "If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples." Clearly all people have an effect on society in some way, but I was trying to make the claim that gender itself does not, rather it is the things we do and say that have an effect.

My conclusions:

Homosexual civil unions and domestic partnerships themselves are not the cause of harm to society, but it is society doing itself harm because the way that they insist on dealing with homosexual civil unions, by, as you used earlier, violently protesting, and I'm sure there are other non-constructive ways as well.

I would also argue that to deny a certain group of human beings the right to marry is discrimination. Therefore, there is more harm being done BY society to society itself because of the rejection of civil unions/domestic partnerships. Therefore, to accept civil unions/domestic partnerships in all of the US would be to a step towards ending such discrimination (and in turn the harm to society that discrimination causes). For instance, if we allow gays to marry, we are essentially accepting them into society as equals, hopefully reducing the bullying, denigrating, and vilification of gays that resulted from such discrimination. Essentially the US is allowing such discrimination to continue unchecked because even our Constitution does not provide the same basic rights for homosexuals as they provide for heterosexuals.

The discrimination of African Americans was much the same issue. At the time of the civil rights movement, many, perhaps even a majority, did not accept African Americans as equals, therefore when the bills were passed in specific states making them equals, there were riots, violent protesting, etc. Does this mean that the civil rights movement was harmful to society? No, people were harmful to people by choice. It is much the same with this issue.

Allowing civil unions and domestic partnerships to run their course just like the civil rights movement will allow the American public to adjust and finally accept homosexuals as equals. Then, you will find that there is no more violence associated with civil unions/domestic partnerships and that there is no longer discrimination against homosexuals, making for a society that is even less harmed than it began.
Rinexe

Pro

Rinexe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jillianl

Con

For the sake of finishing this debate, I refer to my opponent to give the final thoughts.

They can say why they forfeited or whatever they wish . . .
Rinexe

Pro

Sadly, I do not have time to work on this debate at the current time, so I will finish it with some closing ideas.

The logic that a male/female relationship would do the same harm as a m/m f/f relationship is illogical. M/F relationships have been accepted by the religious and the atheistic alike since the beginning of time, where the rise of homosexuality started in the 1920s, and is currently not accepted. Male/female relationships cause no harm because of this eternal acceptance where the homosexual relationships will be forever acknowledged as a sin by three of the five major religions.

The harm to society is obvious under the definition I have of society, which has been accepted, as it is an extended social group. Where the extended social group of America with a distinct culture is against homosexual marriages/civil unions, any change by force to this culture is harmful. This goes under my opponents definition of harmful. It is harmful as the culture has been damaged, so these legislation have obviously been hurtful, injurious, and if anything mischievous.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rinexe 5 years ago
Rinexe
Sorry, I just returned from the competition. I was in fact a little late and will have a response up in a few hours. Deeply sorry.
Posted by Rinexe 5 years ago
Rinexe
My response will likely come late Sunday, as I will be headed to a major debate tournament tomorrow. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
I might argue that they should have the right to marry, therefore civil unions/domestic partnerships are counter intuitive and discriminatory.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
JillianlRinexeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con automatically gets the conduct for the forfieted round. While I would have liked to see more sources from Pro, Con did not use any at all. I also believe that trying to place the harm done by protesters on the issues, rather than the protesters is not logically accurate. People are responsible for their own actions.