Homophobia is Justified
This for Larz's WODC Tournament. I thank both him and KC for this debate and for making this tournament a reality. The title of the debate is also the resolution; there is a minimum 2000 ELO requirement to vote on this debate. I look forward to a stimulating discourse and request that KC keep an open mind when reading my arguments--I will endeavor to do the same when evaluating his.
Homophobia* - a strong fear of or strong aversion to homosexuals, homosexuality, or other LGBTQ minority groups
Justified - to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable 
*We won't define this as an irrational fear, as it says in the dictionary,  because to do so would prevent Pro from being able to affirm. Suffice it to say that Pro's job in this debate is to show that homophobia isn't irrational.
If you'd like some background on the subject, check out this link. 
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
R1. Pro presents his Case
R2. Con presents his Case; Pro rebuts Con's Case
R3. Con rebuts Pro's Case; Pro defends Pro's Case**
R4. Con defends Con's Case**; Pro waives
**Debaters may also summarize the debate or provide voting issues and analysis in their final speeches.
...again to KC for what I am sure will be an intriguing debate, and to larz for initiating this tournament.
I thank bsh for the opportunity to debate. I wish him the best of luck!
Thanks to KC for this debate. As you can imagine, this is an issue that I take very seriously, and am eager to have a thorough and engaging discussion on that matter. I will now present my case.
The question posed by the resolution is "Homophobia is Justified." As Pro is making the claim, the burden of proof rests solely on him to defend it. If he has failed to show that homophobia is justified, the resolution cannot be affirmed, and thus we must default to Con.
The issue of whether something is "justified" implies, as per the definition (see R1), that we have a good reason for doing something. A good reason is not merely any reason, because not all reasons are good. This seems rather redundant, but I believe it will become more important as the debate progresses. Let's consider the following example to elucidate my point. A child reads about venomous Australian tarantulas, and suddenly begins to fear all spiders. The child does have a reason for fearing spiders--the child has read about the deadly effects of the bite of a certain kind of spider. Unfortunately, this is not a good reason to fear all spiders, since the vast majority of the arachnids are non-venomous.
We could draw this example out even further, to continue to demonstrate my point. Let's assume that a respected arachnologist has told the child that no venomous spiders inhabit the region where the child lives. Surely, a rational agent would no longer fear the spiders that they encounter around their house because they have good reason to believe that such spiders are harmless. Yet, humans are not just rational, but we are also emotional. Despite this new insight, therefore, the child continues to display a strong fear of all spiders.
The child has arachnophobia. The term "phobia" itself implies irrationality, and the irrational nature of something is what makes it unjustified. The child's fear of spiders isn't justified because there is no rational reason to fear them in her situation. This logic is intuitively evident in the example I cite, and it is semantically implied by the very term "justified." And, an irrational actions is not a justified action; I even said as much when I pointed out in R1 that it was, in essence, Pro's job to show homophobia to be rational. We can therefore conclude that if homophobia is irrational, it is unjustified, meriting a Con ballot.
I am now going to make my core claim: the only rational reason to fear something is that you believe it will cause harm to you (directly or indirectly). It is not rational to fear all spiders, because not all spiders are going to cause harm to you. It is logical to fear a boomslang or a hippo, because the former is incredibly venomous and the latter is one of the most dangerous animals (by body count) in Africa.
The only logical way, then, to approach the topic is to ask whether homosexuals or members of the LGBTQ community are harmful. If the answer is yes, then homophobia is justified. If the answer is no, then homophobia is not justified.
One of the most common reasons that homophobes cite for their fear of homosexuals is the prevalence of STDs in the gay community. "The global HIV and AIDS epidemic has always been closely linked with attitudes towards gay men; a group that is particularly affected by HIV and AIDS."  In fact, while the LGBTQ community does have higher rates of HIV than the straight community, the reason for this discrepancy is not because homosexual sex cannot be practiced safely, but because the culture of safe sex in that community was less prevalent when the HIV epidemic first broke out than it is now.  In fact, "homophobia continues to be a major barrier to ending the global HIV and AIDS epidemic. In many countries, stigma and discrimination prevent men who have sex with men from accessing vital HIV prevention, treatment and care services."  "Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."  Perhaps even more startling, 19.3% of all hate crimes are motivated by homophobia.  So, if the harms caused by HIV/AIDS are reasons to fear something, we should fear homophobes not homosexuals because the former are the ones obstructing the progress to a safer community.
Religion and "machismo" cultural trends are also reasons for homophobic feelings.  Neither of these reasons are truly rational reasons to fear gay people. The Bible supports many things now dismissed by modern society as wrong or irrational, such as slavery, animal sacrifice, and patriarchal power structures. Why should a book that contains such errors or outmoded material be used to justify homophobia, esp. since it's claims against homosexuals could be just as errant as its endorsements of slavery, chauvinism, etc. Frankly, this will be true of any religion, and calls into question the rationality of using any religious text, just barely asserted, to make the case for homophobia. And, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, we could be misinterpreting some of the anti-homosexual passages . If such books and scrolls are open to interpretation, it is hard to justify using them in any absolute fashion to blanketly justify homophobia.
Finally, the other claim used commonly to justify homophobia is the claim that there is a pernicious gay agenda out to corrupt children and society, and that homosexuals may even be more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. [4, 5] This is really a collection of claims, but I think they're often woven together by homophobia's more vociferous proponents, so it makes sense to talk about them together. We can dismiss the claim that gay individuals are somehow a threat to minors based on an analysis of the available, credible research: "reflecting the results of these and other studies, as well as clinical experience, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children...There is no factual basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults. " 
Lastly, if there is a "gay agenda" it is merely a desire to be treated as equal members of society. It is no more pernicious or dangerous than the Civil Rights or Women's Suffrage movements, because, as already illustrated, gay people aren't dangerous. So, really, it's just ridiculous to assert this as some sort of threat.
Ultimately, I would like to conclude with the following quote: "Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women."  Really, modern homophobia is simply a manifestation of an illogical fear of a minority group, and, like the Jews and the Blacks, like the Muslims and the Catholics--all of whom were or are being persecuted in the U.S.--the persecution of gay people is not rationally justifiable. It is fundamentally irrational, and based in emotion--hate and fear being the primary drivers. This emotional response doesn't meet the criteria of "justified," and so we need to reject today's resolution and vote Con. Thank you.
1 - http://www.avert.org...
2 - http://std.about.com...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...
5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Propositions (1) on Definitions of "Justified"
A Negation of Intimacy (Distancing) in Hate: Repulsion and Disgust
2.3 The neural correlates of hate prove one thing; that this hatred is often rational, and often is sustained.
Note: Whatever is based on emotion is not inherently irrational, and is impossibly unjust, for the emotions of affection are based entirely on emotion. If affection were based entirely on rational sense, then it would be very hard to find a partner.
Propositions (3) on the Harm-Factor of Homosexuality
3. Homosexuality’s perception as harmful is natural, which justifies homosexuality
3.1 Take the following syllogism for example:
P1. All threat-perception are natural
P2. All natural factors are justified
C. All Threat-perception is justified
P1. All t* is N
P2. All N* is J
C. All t is J*
3.11 (Defense of Premise One) As stated in the last round, threat perception against a certain type of people is often a reaction against certain societal changes via the majority. Let us take the mere example; if a room is filled with liberals, but a rising trend of conservatives are coming to that room, there would be a backlash of the room filled with liberals against this conservative influx. The same can be said about the homosexual society; due to an increase in homosexuals during the last 10 years, it can be said that the backlash against this is often normal. This is due to an offshoot of Kin Altruism; the need to protect those similar to one another.
3.12 (Defense of Premise Two) all natural factors are justified, as there are no ratiocination to prove it unjustifiable. For example, if we were to attempt to prove a Tsunami unjustified, we must take into account that all actions unjustified can often be prevented. For justice is an abstract virtue. Whatever is abstract can often be defined differently, but justice is also a virtue that can be applied to one thing, and not applied to another. When justice is applied to an action, a belief, then justice can be taken away from that belief, action, making it unjustified. But whatever is not unjustified is justified by either (1) nature, or by (2) morality. If something is justified via morality that means that the action is morally correct on balance. But if something is justified via nature, then no matter how “morally immoral” it maybe, there is absolutely no way to say that it is unjustified; for humans neither ordered it, nor did they desire it.
3.13 The third premise is the natural corollary of the last two propositions.
3.22 (On the Teleology of Homosexual Acts) The many “stereotypical behaviors” of the homosexual community is no different from the empirical evidences that we are receiving. Accordingly, Homosexuals are seven times more likely to be addicted to drugs . However, many aspects of the “Gay Lifestyle” may be seen as simply perverted to some. This justification is based upon the assertions that it is unnatural; for the practice of homosexual intercourse goes against the “main purpose” of sexual intercourse, that is the production of offshoot. Natural selection favors those whose practices produce favorable outcome; that is why the human brain is designed to have sexual lust. Natural selection often discards those species whose practices have almost no point; natural selection is a game of species fighting for survival. The fittest shall survive; humans are the fittest, and we have won this hard game; why should we corrupt our victory with such worthless claims, so worthless that it allows humans to be discarded via the process of the game?
3.23 (Of Religious Justifications for Homophobia) It would be almost impossible to dismiss the religious justifications for homophobia. For religion and mankind has been intercorrelated with each other; the origins of religions, when explained, seems to be enough justifications for most. Religion was created as a by-product of other psychological apparatuses which man has gained via the process of natural selection. Since the acquiring of this is natural, then it would be logical to say that religious justifications for homophobia are natural, for the development of religion is a natural development.
3.24 (On the Corruption of the Youth) The opponent describes (please read comments) the corruption of the youth via homosexuality, and how such assertions are false. However, it would be necessary to address the growing freedom of the “ego” in the world today; by “ego” I mean sexual freedom(s) in media and the like. Firstly, this should be tracked to the ultraliberal feminist movement, whose indecent exposure still goes on today; advocating for such things like birth control, LGBTQ rights, and sexual freedom, they have created a sexually oriented youth
3.25 (On Molestation) Accordingly, it would be incorrect to label all homosexuals as child molesters; yet from their liberal attitude, it would be. However, this assertion does not go unsupported by the many empirical “evidences” that we have. The number of homosexual sex offenders over-represents the number of homosexuals in the population. In a study of 4,000 male sex offenders, 1/3 of them molested boys whilst 2/3 molested girls. In comparison with the 5-10% of homosexuals in the population, this over-representation is often shocking to some. This assertion would often lead to the assertion that many homosexuals, albeit not all, are quite likely to molest children. 
Note: This is not hasty generalization, but merely a justification for homophobia. These beliefs may not characterize the opposition.
Corollary: Homophobia can only be just because of these reasons.
∴Homophobia, because of reasons of religion, of threats against youth physically and psychologically, of teleology of intercourse, is just.
Thanks, KC! I will be mostly addressing KC's initial case; however, there is just one thing he said in round two that needs to be clear up first. I'll start with the latter and transition to the former.
The exact definition of "Justified" being used this round reads: "to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable." This is crucial, because in R2, Pro suggest that just showing any reason is sufficient to justify something; yet, the definition specifies that it must be a GOOD reason, not just any reason. On to R1...
1. The underlying logic Pro is using here is that which is natural is justified. Pro asserts that many prejudiced feelings are natural, so, by his logic, racism is justified. I think that this demonstrates the absurd lengths to which his argument can be taken.
2. Firstly, just because something is natural does not make it just or right. It is, for example, neither just nor unjust to be Black--yousimply are Black. It is a fact statement, not a ethical or judgement-basedstatement.To extrapolate moral or ethical judgements from matters of pure fact commits a form of the is/ought fallacy. 
Secondly, there are many impulses in nature that we inutitively realize are not just or right. If you bump me in the hllway causing me to drop my pen, and I have an intense urge to push you down a flight of stairs, my rage isn't justified, despite the fact that it's natural. Why is this? My rage isn't a proportional response to what was done to me--even if I don't actually push him down the stairs, I can't claim that I had good reason tobe as angry as I was. Morever, from a moral level, many people would agree that this kind of vindictiveness isn't morally right or just either.
Therefore, for both of these reasons,it would be illogical to say that what is natural is justified because it is just or right.
3. If something being natural doesn't make it just or right, it could naturalness make something reasonable, or could it be a good reason for homophobia. Firstly, "reasonable" means "fair and sensible" , so is something natural fair and sensible? Nature is certainly not fair--I could naturally be born with magnificent talent and intelligence, whereas someone else could be afflicted with something like Down's Syndrome. That's not fair. And, as I discussed in my case, fear of all spiders isn't sensible, even though it might be natural. So naturalness doesn't imply reasonableness. And, it really isn't a good reason anyway, for the exact same reasons I expounded on last round. The child doesn't have a good reason to fear spiders, yet she does so anyway. So, it seems that just because something is natural that doesn't make it justified.
Pro even suggest logical errors like the Fundamental Attribute Error are reasons for homophobia--this basically makes my case that no good reason exists to be homophobic.
4. Pro hasn't sufficiently demonstrated that homophobia is a natural impulse anyway. There are other factors, such as religion, that play into developing the homophobia of many people who may not otherwise have been homophobic. If homophobia is influenced by things such as faith, upbringing, media stereotypes, etc., then it cannot be said that homophobia is purely natural. There are plausible other explanations for homophobia.  In fact, "it is widely believed that homophobia is primarily caused by a person"s direct environment rather then an inherent view held within them or any series of traumatic events."  This severelyweakens the premise on which Pro's argument here is built.
1. Pro argues that because I have a right to think anything, I should be able to think anything. Again, this seems to invoke an is/ought fallacy of it's own. I have the freedom to walk into my neighbor's house uninvited, but that doesn't mean that I should. Just because I have the freedom to think and say anything I wish, does not mean I should.
Moreover, I might think that murder is always okay--and that certainly would not be considered a just or right belief/opinion by the vast majority of people.
Thus, it cannot be said that freedom of thought justifies homophobia in the sense that it makes homophobia just or right.
2. Next, does freedom of thought make homophobia reasonable? I can think that 1+1 = 7, and I have a right to think that, but what I am thinking isn't sensible. Therefore, it isn't reasonable. Consequently, freedom of thought doesn't justify homophobia on reasonability grounds.
3. Finally, I can think 1+1 = 7, but if experts and mathematics itself have told me that 1+1 = 2, I don't have a good reason harbor that belief. Ultimately, then, freedom of thought doesn't provide a good reason for homophobia either.
Pro writes, "This also fuels the 'homosexuals are perverted' question, as homosexuals are shown to be very indecently dressed at these parades, kissing and often times touching the penises/vaginas of other homosexuals." Unless Pro can show that homosexuals expose themselves indecently or make out publically more than heterosexuals, I don't think this argument will have any weight. Anecdotally, I have only ever seen heterosexual people doing either of those things, and even if we assume that both groups do such activities and relatively equal rates, than there is no reason to fear homosexuals over heterosexuals. As for the FEMEN example, this is a blatant instance of cherry-picking, and should be dismissed as such. 
Parades happen all over the world all the time. If Pro claims that freedom of thought makes homophobia justified, then he must surely believe that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly justify Pride Parades. Again, Pro fails to warrant how pride parades are any more disruptive than other parades are. Certainly the Macy's Day parade must disrupt day-to-day life. Should it be banned or feared viscerally?
Pro writes next, "Apart from this, the Pro-Homosexuality groups are often portrayed as shirtless, perverted hippies." This line just underscore how preposterous his argument as become. Why are homosexual groups portrayed that way? Because others are homophobic, and so smear them as "perverted hippies." At this point, Pro is using homophobia to justify homophobia--that's circular logic. Moreover, if the way they are portrayed isn't true (and Pro hasn't show that it is) that portrayal isn't a good reason to fear those groups. And seriously, if corrupting the youth is our standard for justified fear, we should have Ke$ha-phobia, Bieber-phobia, and all other sorts of phobias for people who are bad role models for our kids. But, we realize that these people aren't to be viscerally feared, but rather we work to mitigate their influence without having powerful fears of them.
1. How is homosexual sex irrational? It is alleviating a powerful natural urge. I eat because I am hungry. I have sex because my libido tells me too. If I can't release that urge with women, I have to do it with men. That seems wholly rational.
2. Pro does not explain why procreation is moral, whereas pleasure is not. Major thinkers like Mills argue that pleasure is the metric by which we assess morality, and all Pro does is barely assert (a logical fallacy) that pleasure-seeking is wrong. Also, Pro's argument here is the homosexual sex is irrational, yet here he digresses to claims about morality--something can be rational and immoral, so I don't see the connection (again with the permutations of the is/ought fallacy.)
3. Clearly, when participating in sex, the risk of pain (though I don't think it's painful, and I think I'm a better authority on it that Con) and the risk of STDs are things that are known and accepted. A party is making the judgment that those risks are not outweighed by the pleasure gained, esp. since safe sex practices can be used to mitigate those risks. That is a rational tradeoff to make, and one straight couples make all the time. It is not as if STDs are reserved just for homosexuals; if STDs are a reason to fear homosexual sex, they are a reason to fear all types of sex, period.
Pro's arguments are based on a series of faulty premises that don't actually link to the term "justified." Therefore, his arguments don't actually affirm the topic. For those arguments whose premises aren't faulty, the arguments are non-unique, and so again really don't affirm that Pro's world is any more accurate than Con's, at which point we're looking to default to a Con ballot. Thank you.
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3 - http://gayteens.about.com...
4 - http://www.allaboutcounseling.com...
5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)
Time constraints :(
2.4 Let us apply to this to the question of homophobia; if a man truly beliefs in homophobia, then he has every right to believe in that. The exercise of this freedom of thought is just.
Propositions (3) on the Irrationality of Homosexual Acts
3. Homosexual acts are irrational
3.1 Firstly, what is irrationality? Irrationality is “something that does not conform with logical reasoning” For example, to kill a man in front of the law enforcement would be considered irrational.
3.2 Let us affirm that all rational actions have a meaningful purpose; for example, flying a plane have the rational basis of getting from one location to another. The same can be said about driving a car. Henceforth, we can say that all irrational actions have no meaning whatsoever.
3.41 In proving (2), take the following syllogism.
P1. Meaningful has a useful purpose
∴ Homophobia is justified via the naturality of the thought, via the freedom of thought, via a reaction against the liberal attitude, and via the supposed irrationality of homosexual acts. For every action there is an opposite reaction. This is a law of everything. Vote pro!
Pro reasserts that fear is natural, and therefore not irrational. "Irrational" is defined as "not based on reason, good judgment, or clear thinking."  Therefore, if the fear is not based in logic (for example, having a fear of all spiders is not logical) it is irrational. Just because some emotion is felt naturally does not mean that the emotion is a rational one to feel--we often distinguish instinct and naturalness from rationality (someone with a mental illness such as schizophrenia is not rational, despite their condition being a natural one), and this is a case where such a distinction is vital.
Regarding the prefrontal cortex, this area of the brain does not simply do reasoning, it also controls personality, manages social skills, and more.  Just because it is activated when someone feels hate does not mean that hate is rational. That would be like saying that because I go into a Macy's I want to buy clothes--that's fallacious reasoning because Macy's has many departments, and I could want to shop and any one of them, and not necessarily clothes. Similarly, just because the prefrontal cortex is involved in reasoning does not mean reasoning, esp. conscious reasoning, is involved in hate. It could be that one of the cortex's other departments, like personality management, is responsible for hate. Moreover, Pro has only show that hate stimulates the cortex; he has not show that the cortex necessarily makes that hate rational.
So, clearly, Pro has failed to connect that natural to the rational. Since irrational concerns are not good reasons to do something, Pro has failed to show that natural homophobia is justified inasmuch as it could be grounded in a good reason.
Naturalness also clearly does not relate to justness either. In round three (1.1), Pro mistakenly conflates just with justified, and mistakenly assumes that I am conflating just with morality. Justified and just cannot be the same, as one defines the other. However, just is a values judgment--if something is just, we think of it as ethical and the right thing to do. My point, the is/ought fallacy, is that values-based claims cannot be derived from fact based-claims in this way. For instance, it is neither ethical nor unethical, just nor unjust, that I am white. I just am white. Whiteness is a physical state and has no moral value whatsoever. Consider the absurdity of the following claim: a vase is just because it is a vase. Also consider this claim: a white man is just because he is white. Both of these claims are preposterous, so why is it any less preposterous for Pro to claim: a homophobe is just because he is a homophobe. It is both a non-sequitur and circular logic.
Pro misunderstand my argument here--an object's physical traits (color, height, etc.) don't have any bearing on whether something is or is not just. A knife is not unjust because it is a knife. Actions, choices--those are things that have moral value. So, naturalness doesn't make something just or right either. Therefore, Pro cannot use naturalness to prove whether homophobia is justified.
(3) It is only reasonable or rational is there is a logical reason to perceive homosexuals as a threat. As yet, there is no logical reason to conclude that they are a threat.
Pro then suggests that all actions are either justified or unjustified. This dichotomy certainly is not the case, and Pro gives us no reason to believe it is. Justified is a statement of permissibility--it suggests that something was okay to do. Unjustified is a statement of impermissibility--it suggest that something was not okay to do. But there are things that are neither okay nor not okay, but that just are. A tsunami is neither justified nor unjustified because it is not an ethical or rational phenomenon. Pro must show that something is just, right, or sensible. A tsunami is none of these things, yet it is not the converse of these things either, implying that there are some things that are neither justified nor unjustified.
In fact, the likelihood of contracting HIV or an STD "during an act of unprotected anal intercourse is estimated to be 1.4 percent."  The key word there is unprotected. That number is fairly low to begin with, and with effective protection, it's apt to be much lower. Only about 5% of the gay population has STDs, and, with such a small number of people infected, is not a rational reason to be a homophobe. That's like the girl fearing all spiders because somewhere out in the universe there are venomous spiders.
As for Pro's drug study, it includes drugs like marijuana, which are not universally illegal and which are not viewed by many to be harmful. Since we don't actually know how many people in this study, which was limited just to the UK (and it may be different in LGBTQ communities outside the UK), were addicted to which drugs, it is disingenuous to make the claim that homosexuals are 7x more likely to be addicted to illegal drugs. And, since drugs like nicotine weren't counted in the study, it is also wrong to claim that homosexuals are 7x more likely to be addicted to drugs.
Also, why should the fact that gay sex is not reproductive inspire fear--it harms not one. It may be disliked, but it's not a reason to fear. Moreover, why must sex be reproductive; there are many reasons to have sex, including intimacy. Finally, heterosexuals engage in non-reproductive sex all the time, so if someone fears others because they don't engage in reproductive sex, he will have to fear heterosexuals too. Thus, it would cease to be homophobia, because it would no longer be confined to LGBTQ people.
Pro basically claims that because religion is natural, it is logical to use it to fear homosexuals. I already addressed the issues with naturalness, and Pro totally drops the passages of the Bible could be being misinterpreted and that the Bible itself is outmoded in many aspects--it tells us to make animal sacrifices, but we don't. We selectively choose those portions of the Bible we want to obey; if that is the case, then the Bible is not a credible source, but rather is a guise through which we can hide our irrational fears in religiosity.
Pro then talks about sex in the media as corrupting the youth. If this were a reason to fear something, then we should fear the ultra feminists for it as well--in which case we're not fearing gays because they are gay (homophobia) but because of some other reason. Therefore, because we're fearing heterosexuals and gays for "corruptingg the youth" we're not being homophobic, our phobia is instead of promiscuity.
Pro presents a study of male sex offenders. This is just 1 study, my source is drawing from many studies to reach it's conclusion. Furthermore, "Adoption expert, Carrie Craft cites the Child Welfare Information Gateway (previously National Adoption Information Clearinghouse) as stating, "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." The study also found that of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. The American Psychological Association agrees, "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children."" 
1 - www.merriam-webster.com
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://std.about.com...
4 - http://gaylife.about.com...
Homophobia is not rational, and thus is not justified by a good reason; it is not just or right; and it is not sensible, a perquisite for being reasonable. Ultimately, just because you can naturally be homophobic, just because you have a right to think what you want, does not mean your thoughts are right, just, or rational. Thus, homophobia cannot be justified. Vote Con, please.
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|