The Instigator
Katerina-Vinther
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Mr.Kal
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Do you have the right to be homophobic?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Katerina-Vinther
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 639 times Debate No: 68377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Katerina-Vinther

Pro

I believe in gay rights to marriage and adoption and the same rights as everyone else. But i also believe in the right to free speach and to have your own opinon. Therefore I believe you have the right to be homophobic.
Mr.Kal

Con

As I do agree with you partly in the sense everyone has the right to their own opinion. There is a strong difference between homophobia and disliking the homosexual life style. A phobia is after all is an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Homophobic individuals do not believe in granting freedoms to L.G.B.T society as they would be afraid of them, strongly disliking them, even allowing the persecution of that part of society to keep them away. If we look back through U.S history it follows similar lines to segregation. You had two different groups of people who just barely got along and only believed in the others right to life and tried tomaintain the status quo - but did not care beyond much else. They did everything in their power to keep a separate society from the other group of individuals, but "accepted" they had rights to vote. Even with Constitution and Emancipation Proclamation - there still remained no social equality. As long as hatred is allowed to sequester in society there will always be a division and growing hatred which will eventually boil over to violence - which has been seen through lynchings, dragging individuals behind a car and other forms of intimidation such as cross burning, etc. Homophobia is the new kid on the block of the things which needs to be removed forcibly and not accepted . It is just a new form of segregation which just focuses the hatred on a different group of individuals.

For once we remove fear; we learn to accept, understand and create harmony.
Debate Round No. 1
Katerina-Vinther

Pro

I agree with you on your statement about being homophobic isn't the same as not accepting being gay. But on your point of view of homophobia has to be forcibly removed, I don't agree. I truly believe that you have every right to have your own opinions and fears. You have free will and that includes fear of different groups. It might be a disadvantage in society, but disadvantages always exist, and they have the right to.
Mr.Kal

Con

Unless we learn from history we will only repeat the mistakes of our past. Fear and hatred of other people have almost always proven disastrous. Lets take another note from history - The Patriot Act - a Fear based law which allowed the government to arrest any individual they suspected to be a terrorist without due process.
https://consortiumnews.com...

Or how about between 1942 - 1946 nearly 110,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in one of numerous internment camps around the country because there was a "fear" that they were spies. Army officers came to their home and dragged them out, only allowing them to carry one suitcase each. They did not even have enough time to prepare their property to protect what they rightfully own. Once the people came back many found their places looted or destroyed.
Camp Locations:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...

Lets take a step back further in history, from 1520 to 1693 was the period of "Witch Hunting" (mainly women). Again this was an instance which occurred purely out of fear. They feared nearly 50,000 people were witches and killed them in various manner of ways from burning at the stake, to drowning and stoning. Again these people were "freely" allowed to "fear", which resulted in another tragedy.
http://scienceblogs.com...

Fear is something we should never promote or allow when it comes to a reference of a group of people. Fear is one of the principal elements for sparking hatred and with hatred, the fires of violence ignite. Only because we allowed these fears to grow, these atrocities were committed. An by continuing to allow it to remain, we are only showing our inability to understand the past and end the never ending cycle of violence, propagated by fear.

Not every opinion should be accepted if we ever want to live in a harmonious society. Especially if that fear breeds violence. Fear is what dictators use to subjugate their people. Fear is what the mind does to cripple our ability to think. Fear is the seed in which violence sprouts. Fear is one opinion which has to be replaced by acceptance if we ever want to live a peaceful society.
Debate Round No. 2
Katerina-Vinther

Pro

I agree on your argument about fear has been the cause of catastrophes through out our human history. I also agree that fear should not be promoted. But it should be allowed. Anyone is allowed to not accept or to fear. As long as they don't act upon it in a violent way. Every single human being has the right to express the opions, an have any form of fear. That does not allow them to violate others human rights, but it is a human right to fear whom you choose.
Mr.Kal

Con

In the end of the day there are 2 types of fears.
A rational fear which stems from a protective survival mechanism
An irrational fear which is resultant most commonly from a lack of understanding or acceptance.

Homophobia is the latter of the two. In fact so much so by considering it a phobia, it has become a medical disorder and requires treatment - unlike Homosexuality which is not a disease. I wished for your final argument to some how justify homophobia is valid fear which should be accepted more than the fact it is an opinion of the individual to have such a fear. But in order to do so you would have to prove the credibility of that fear more than the mere choice to have it.

Can homosexuality kill the individual who witness it? If it did homosexuals in turn could not exist if such a scenario was valid.
Can you become Gay by knowing a homosexual? No - otherwise by that trend majority of the world would have been homosexual thousands of years ago. As homosexuality was quite common through history as bisexual orgies were not a uncommon thing in the roman upper houses.
Is our population so low we risk human annihilation due to lack of reproductive capacity propagated by homosexuality? Of course not - in fact the world is facing issues of overpopulation and homosexuality in fact in turn is helping the issue.

So what justification is there to classify homophobia more than a mere medical disorder on the individual who has it? Homophobia is an irrational fear which needs to be treated and far different from simply not accepting such a life style for your self. So there really is no justification to allow homophobia to exist as it causes far more harm than good (if any).
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
@Mr.Kal
Yes, you are correct. I should re-word that statement entirely, I did not mean to insinuate that you needed to prove every fearful individual resorts to violence, I apologize. I don't believe just any risk factor would be enough justification. Otherwise, you would be appealing to the extremes. However, I did not find any evidence that you presented to be relevant. Your argument was an incomplete comparison fallacy. You intentionally ignored other key elements in the your comparisons to the Japanese American internment camps, witch hunting, and the patriot act in order for your argument to have merit. During those instances, fear alone was not the only ingredient in the cocktail of violence. This is because fear alone does not incite violence. Furthermore, not a single example you presented showed a violent act committed by a homophobic individual.
Posted by Mr.Kal 2 years ago
Mr.Kal
@ZenoCitium
Asking for it to happen every time is a standard set so high it is no longer in the realms of reality. A risk factor is more than enough justification to put a stop at it when history shows a clear trend of atrocities in a large scale. Not just one or two people in random areas, but by the thousands.
Posted by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Spelling and grammar were tied. I can't give either Pro or Con points for most reliable sources. I do not think it is correct to automatically award points to Con for having sources over Pro"s lack of sources. Con"s sources were unrelated to the main argument as they were linked to irrelevant premises. Con"s relevant argument stopped when they jumped from the correct definition of homophobia to the incorrect assumption that all "homophobic individuals do not believe in granting freedoms to L.G.B.T society as they would be afraid of them, strongly disliking them, even allowing the persecution of that part of society to keep them away". This premise was unsubstantiated as no evidence was provided.

The basic argument that Con"s presented:
P1: Homophobic individuals are afraid of homosexuals (accepted)
P2: Fear leads to hatred and hatred leads to committing atrocities / violence (unsubstantiated)

The evidence provided did prove the fear SOMETIMES motivates violence but not that all fearful individuals commit violent acts. This is a rather imprudent and foolish premise that was harshest in their words "by considering it a phobia, it has become a medical disorder and requires treatment". Con states that homophobia should be "forcibly removed", a statement that borders on inciting hatred and violence in-and-of itself.
Posted by Mr.Kal 2 years ago
Mr.Kal
@black_squirrel - I find your statement ironic. You your self made the argument in concealed weapon debate stating that "paranoia" ( an irrational fear of something ) - is a risk factor for violent crime. Yet make the argument here that an irrational fear here does not lead to violence or discrimination.
http://www.debate.org...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 2 years ago
ZenoCitium
Katerina-VintherMr.KalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD provided in comments.
Vote Placed by rikomalpense 2 years ago
rikomalpense
Katerina-VintherMr.KalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct, S/G: No major issues on either side. Tie. Sources: Pro cited no sources. Automatic point to Con. Arguments: Pro did not attempt to defend their arguments, merely making unsupported claims, while Con attempted to support their stance with sources. Con wins.
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 2 years ago
black_squirrel
Katerina-VintherMr.KalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: There is a difference between an irrational fear of homosexuals, and acting such fears (such as discrimination, violence). Con does not seem to understand this distinction. Although CON had some sources, they did not seem very relevant.