The Instigator
Con (against)
21 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Homophobia is Justified

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/1/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,438 times Debate No: 61156
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (3)





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 [1]

*We won't define this as an irrational fear, as it says in the dictionary, [1] 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. [2]


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!

Premise under (1) Naturality of Homophobia

1. Homophobia is a natural reaction against perceived threats of homosexuality.

1.1 Homophobia, like many prejudiced feelings, are natural.

1.2 Homophobia is natural due to the sociological origins of prejudiced attitudes. Using the model for racism, we could inquire and analyze the fact that homophobia can be natural; and whatever is natural, can be said to be rational, as naturality is reason. However, naturality may prove a justification for homophobia.

1.3 Let one now then inquire into the sociological origins of homophobia; in sociology, the sociological model of prejudice development is described in the following; (1) of perceived threats, which is developed through the kin theory, of (2) the development of negative stereotypes, of (3) discrimination against the perceived threat, of (4) isolation, and of (5) total seclusion and apprehension from normative society.

1.31 An analysis of evolutionary biology, of neurology, and of other fields shall attempt to prove this development of homophobia and discrimination normal.

1.4 Of (1) perceived threats; firstly, it would be suffice to say that many people infer that threats from homosexual presents problems for their children. There are several theories for the origins of homosexuality, but most imperatively, it is my best interest to show that perceived threats are natural. Firstly, the kin alturism theory, which states that people often help their own kinsmen rather than others, is applied here. Kin alturism here is often confirmed by the fact that the ACC (Anterior Cingular Cortex) is often none-accepting in visible, or subliminal, qualities of people who are "different" from you, or your perceived reality of "conventions" Homosexuals are seen as a threat in three major ways: (1) that of human reproduction, (2) that of perversion and (3) that of tradition, in which Kin Alturism may have a huge a effect on reasons (1) and (3) [1][2]

1.41 Of (2) the development of negative stereotypes; it would suffice in providing a psychological explanation of the development of stereotypical behaviour. Accordingly to the theory of the "fundamental attribute error" negative stereotypes may be developed. For example, if a black man steals a car, it would be rational to think that the case of this is "he is evil" but Fundamental Attribute Error leads us to think the opposite; "he is Black" This may be given to the homosexuals too; in a resurgence of the drug Methamphetamine took huge effects on the Homosexual society. Soon, due to this cognitive attitude of the "Fundamental Attribute Error" stereotypes were developed. The Fundamental Attribute Error is an intuitive human behaviour, and is natural; henceforth, it would be easily concluded that the development of stereotypes, which may be turn in homophobia, is natural. [3]

1.42 Of (3) the start of discrimination; this is due to the fact that negative stereotypes, created via fundamental attribute error, which was then created by Kin Altruism, will leave an everlasting effects on the people targeted; at this rate, homosexuals are 7 times more susceptible to drug usage [4]. This is possibly due to stereotype threats. However, there is another dilemma here; that the development of certain stereotypes in facts (like Muslims are terrorists, or Jews are rich) can often lead to prejudice. And when the group is departing the normal conventions of normal, these prejudice are often used against them. Arguments against the "homosexual lifestyle" often derive from the VERY foundations of stereotypes. For example, homosexuals are perverted developed from the maxim that homosexuals often have anal intercourse. These stereotypes, and feelings of prejudice, are natural and normal, due to the fact that the development of stereotypes and perceived fear are natural.

Corollary: It can be said that whatever is natural, is just. For homosexuality maybe arguably natural, and it is just, so if homophobia is natural, it is justified.

Homophobia is natural, and henceforth, justified

Premises Under (2) Freedom of Thought

Freedom of thought is a natural born human right.

2.1 The Freedom of Thought and of Opinion is protected via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

2.2 That all humans are born equal is a fact that the world, apart from a minority few, believes in; all humans were born equal, including homophobes. Unless the opposition ought to argue against the fact that homophobes aren't human being, he would have to accept the mere (and possibly sorrowful) reality, that homophobes are human

2.3 Every human is, accordingly, entitled to human rights. The exercise of their own human rights in their own way is always just; for if a man becomes a liberal, does one ought to kill him for his beliefs? It is because he has the rights to this belief, is why one should refrain from objecting his "opinion" or "his mode" of thinking unjust. (To make myself clear, this means that man has freedom to believe what he want, and this is just)

2.4 To call holding an opinion, a field of thought, or an ideology unjust is unjust in itself, in which it does not seek to create any benefits for the common man. For every man has his rights; and the violation of it cannot ever be just. Every man also has the freedom to express his opinions.

Corollary: The rights to hold opinion is just. Homophobia is an opinion.

∴ Every man has the freedom of thought, and as homophobia is a thought, this makes the man just.

Premises Under (3) Methods of Pro-Homosexual Groups and the Lack of Control over Perversion in Youth

The Methods of Pro-Homosexual groups are objectifiable.

3.1 These methods include many scences of sexual lack of control; such as shirtless kissing, indecent exposure and many other lack of sexual control have led to many people coming to a strong anti-homosexual basis. 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.

3.2 The case study can be seen in the pro-homosexual group, Femen; also an ultrafeminist group, FEMEN has been known for many many things, inclusively, that of being a very indecent exposure group, and that of being very extreme about their ultraliberal beliefs. FEMEN has been known to expose whole bare bodies to passers. This is very objectifiable, and provides fuel for the belief that homosexuals are perverts.

3.21 Apart from this, pride parades are a violation of the normal tranquility in society; for pride parade often disrupts the normal life of men, for a cause that has arguably been 3/4th acheived throughout the world.

3.3 Apart from this, the Pro-Homosexuality groups are often portrayed as shirtless, perverted hippies; this also presents an influence on the youth. The lack of discipline in the youth can be arguably treated to the objections to the many moral assertions that humanity has made. However, before we go into inquiry about this, we must state that youth premartial sex is rising; mainstream fashion has turned from the highly protective fashion of the early 20th century to a more exposed type of fashion of the current generation. This is a sign of a lack of sexual control.

3.31 The origins of these new sexual freedoms can be traced to the sexual openness of the 1970s, in which the homosexual movement was gaining momentum, and was often an offshoot of the feminist/civil rights movement. The liberal attitude of these feminists had so much influence upon the youth, that the legacy of the feminists are carried on subliminally. As many conservatives point out, feminist methods are destroying the traditional family. But as many conservatives have also pointed out, the methods of feminism are disgusting and sexually immoral; this carries on to the pro-homosexual movement as well.

Corollary: Homophobia is a reaction against the liberal attitude of feminism, which has corrupted the youth.

Homophobia is just in which it fights for less sexual freedoms for the youth

Premises Under (4) the Irrationality of Homosexual Intercourse

It is said that homosexual intercourse is a very irrational thing to do.

4.1 For the proccess of reproduction has one goal; to make offspring. But when homosexuals have intercourse, an offspring (naturally) is impossible. Henceforth, there can be one other jusitfication, an immoral one, for homosexual intercourse. This is, of pleasure. When some process is diverted from its main target, it directly becomes immoral.

4.2 Let us take the example of exchanges; invented to further human understanding and trade in economics, it has been corrupted to a principle that enslaves men and women alike, in the creation of capitalism.

4.3 For when a plane is diverted from transportation, it is used for war; when selfishness is diverted from kinsmen altruism, it is used for egoistic desires. And when sexual lust is diverted; it is used to gain pleasure.

4.4 Pleasure is not always the correct thing to do; homosexuals have a much higher chance of contracting STDs through unprotected anal sex. Apart from this, anal sex often "hurts" (I shall not go further). [5] Pleasure for one, in the face of pain and health issues of another (or both) cannot be rational in any sense. Apart from this, when a proccess is diverted from its real intention, it becomes immoral immediately, as proven in the previous premises.

Corollary: Homosexual acts are irrational and immoral, and the opposition to irrationality and immorality is just

∴ Homophobia is just due to the fact that homosexual sex is immoral and irrational.

Due to time restrictions, I am unable to come up with a better argument. I apologize.




Debate Round No. 1


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." [1] 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. [2] 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." [1] "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." [3] Perhaps even more startling, 19.3% of all hate crimes are motivated by homophobia. [3] 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. [1] 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 [3]. 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. " [4]

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." [4] 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 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -


Propositions (1) on Definitions of "Justified"

1. Quoting the oppositions definition: "to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable" can be provided as two sentences. "To provide a reason for (something)" or "To provide a good reason for (something)" Another definition of justified is "to show something to be just, right or reasonable"

Propositions (2) on the "Phobia" in Question and Irrationality

2. The psychological definition of phobia is in itself irrational; the sociological/political definition of "phobia" however is by nature often based upon the emotions of hate, fear and anger. As fear has been properly addressed in the last round, the analysis of the neural correlates of hate must be provided, to show that the phobia in question is not "irrational"

2.1 The Neural Correlates of Hate can be tracked to several parts of the brain; these parts of the brain often employ rational reasoning. An example of this would be the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is unusually active when the emotions of hatred are activated; at this point, it must be noted that the neural correlates of fear and anger (amygdala, ACC) were not activated during the intense period of hate. The prefrontal cortex is the "reasoning" part of the brain. An undeveloped PFC (prefrontal cortex) can mean a huge deficit in reasoning skills. [1][2][3]

2.2 This often means that in hatred, rational reasoning is often employed; but one firstly needs to distinguish between "true" hate and "fake" hate. "Fake" hate is often accompanied by anger; "true" hate is a more passive emotion. In fact, accordingly to a study, "true" hatred is often passive. True hatred is sustained; as after an increase in hate, all parts of the brain except for right superior frontal gyrus, which remains mildly active. Ironically, "true" hate transforms a personality, as the right superior frontal gyrus is often correlated with self-awareness. [1][4] The characteristics of true hate conform to the following (accordingly to Sternberg's Triangular Hate Theory):

A Negation of Intimacy (Distancing) in Hate: Repulsion and Disgust
B/ Passion in Hate: Anger-Fear
C/ Decision-Commitment in Hate: Devaluation-Diminution Through Contempt

This is the "phobia" we currently discuss, and the "phobia" we characterize as "homophobia"

2.3 The neural correlates of hate prove one thing; that this hatred is often rational, and often is sustained.

Homophobia results to hate, which activates an area of the brain that is the basis of all human reasoning. Henceforth, homophobia is not irrational.

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

Star Test:

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.
3.2 But apart from this, there is rational reasoning for one to believe in the “stereotypical” analysis of the homosexual society. Albeit this may be due to stereotype threats, (which to those who deny such a action, is a real psychological apparatus) we may briefly address some of such fears.
3.21 (On HIV and other STDs) The LGBTQ community has had, as the opposition affirms, higher rates of STD infections than the heterosexuals. Albeit the opposition attempts to reason this via the fact that “safe sex” was non-existent factor during the HIV epidemics, this may not be true. In men, the most common way to HIV infections derive from having intercourse. In fact, anal intercourse is a very dangerous pleasure activity to engage in, with an 18 times more likelihood of infecting HIV. [5][6] Apart from HIV, HPV and Syphilis is also increasing; as of 2011, 63% of all those who have Syphilis, primary and secondary, derive from the many groups of the LGBTQ community, but they are most likely to be bisexuals and gays. [7]

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 [8]. 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. [9][10]

Note: This is not hasty generalization, but merely a justification for homophobia. These beliefs may not characterize the opposition.
3.26 Through all these propositions, one question still remain quite unanswered; is homophobia ever justified? Is homophobia inherently rational? It is a rule physics that every action necessarily produces a reaction. Perhaps this might also be a rule of societal actions; that every reaction against every action is necessarily, and henceforth, whatever is natural is just, for whatever is unjust can be prevented from taking its manifestations in the first instances.

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.



Debate Round No. 2


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. [1]

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" [2], 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. [3] 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." [4] 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. [5]

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 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -


Time constraints :(

Propositions (1) under Refutation of Oppositions PREMISE 1

. Firstly, that is indeed the underlying logic in the arguments that were presented in the previous rounds; note the word "justified" The word justified is not a synonym, albeit often used as one, for moral. Racism firstly is immoral; this is a fact that the current world is built upon, but it is not "unjustified" as it has natural origins. One should, however, not get into racism in a debate about homophobia and homophobic "justifications"

1.1 (On Intuition) Firstly, just cannot be used as a synonym for moral, for whatever is just, often is never moral. Let us take the hypothetical example presented by the opposition here; by nature, a man who has had his pencil bumped in the hallway would indeed feel the intuitive urge to punch the person who has bumped into him. One can observe this from two perspectives; (1) that of justification, and (2) that of morality. One should look at morality first; would it be moral to start a fight? The common answer would be no, but are we able to prevent the urge of inciting violence due to intuition? The other common answer is often no. It is neccessarily true that all cases of unjustified actions are often preventable; the Armenian Genocide was unjustified, due to the fact that it was preventable. However, a hurricane cannot be proven to be unjustified, even if the hurricane's damage were irrational and immoral.

1.2 (On Naturality of Homophobia) Firstly, homophobia has existed for a long time now, often as a reaction against the seemingly "irrational and perverted" behavior of homosexuals and homosexual acts. In times of the absence of modern mass media, homophobia took a stance in many "Holy Texts" like the Bible and the Quran. In this one takes a stance in the nature-nurture dialectical process. Nature has produced some impulses in the brain, often identified to the Anterior Cingulate Cortex, in which the activation of the Amygdala (the part of the brain that produces fear) would often come from the recognizing of differences. In the nurture part, opposition accepts the view presented of the sociological development of homophobia, which can be said to be natural. Threat perception activates the amygdala and the cerebral cortex, which raises attention making it particularly easy for the Fundamental Attribute Error behavior to be sufficiently used. [1][2][3]

Propositions (2) under the Freedom of Belief

The usage of freedom of belief is a fundamental human right, as declared by the UDHR in Article 18.

2.1 It is necessarily true that the exercise of human rights is in all instances just; for these rights are natural born, and like your hands, your eyes, can be used to your body's free will.

2.2 However, let us state the true object of inquiry here, before we shall go on. This inquiry is made upon the facts that holding homophobic beliefs can either be necessarily unjustified or justified. Firstly, opposition goes on to talk about the reasonability factor of holding beliefs; however, he ignores the moral factors. Justified is also defined as "to prove something reasonable, just or moral" The exercise of our rights is possibly the most moral thing one can do.

2.21 It would suffice to prove this first; when a man "renounces his liberty, he renounces being man" He lives a brutish robotic life; a brutish robotic life firstly is not just. If a man truly beliefs in homophobia, then he has just cause to truly hold such opinions; for the destruction of them would mean the destruction of his free will. Such opinions may be radical to hold, but can one really justify the loss of the free will, or at lest the huge damage of it, due to the majority?

2.3 Opposition claims that a man "may believe that 1+1=7" or that murder is moral from a perspective that the practical usage would be immoral, unreasonable, and unjust. However, from then to here, we have thought of rights as merely an abstract natural principle, which exists and is exercised only in speech and thoughts. It would be unjustified to indoctrinate your children to think 1+1=7 or unjust to actively put the principles of "all murder is just" into practice, as that would result in harm. However, these rights should be practiced in thought.

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.

3.3 But let us respond to the opposition’s arguments; he affirms that he has sexual intercourse because “his libido” tells him too. However, let us take the “Pleasure Principle” theory advocated by Sigmund Freud. The “libido” can be equated to the ego. If one wants to listen to everything the ego says, then if the ego tells the id to rape the women in front of one, then the id would do so. The ego/libido wants “sex and pleasure” and only “sex and pleasure”

3.31 This is where the quasi-moral philosopher called the superego comes in. The superego prevents the id from being taken over by the libido/ego.

3.4 Firstly, let us analyze homosexuality and homosexual acts as an offspring of an abnormal ego (albeit here I am not analyzing the cause of homosexuality). Pleasure is momentarily condition and is often not sustained; one can have pleasure in the process of masturbation, but this pleasure is not sustained. Pleasure is addictive; it releases dopamine in the brain. However, there is something inherently irrational about homosexual sex; this is that the only result of homosexual acts is pleasure, and no offspring. If irrational is defined as not going through logical reasoning, then it would be an affirmed fact that sexual intercourse with no offspring is inherently irrational, as (1) sexual intercourse and the “libido” were designed as humanoid secrets to winning the game of natural selection (and henceforth, for fear of losing the “game” should be stopped), and (2) pleasure is not a meaningful end.

3.41 In proving (2), take the following syllogism.

P1. Meaningful has a useful purpose
P2. Homosexual sex has no useful purpose
C. Homosexual acts are not meaningful

Defending Premise One: This is the official meaning of “meaningful” i.e to have a useful purpose.

Defending Premise Two: What is useful? Useful is often meant as beneficial to other people, and to the world. Useful often means “better effects” to humankind. For example, killing an innocent person provides no beneficial effects for humankind as a whole, and henceforth these acts are not meaningful to humankind. FOR FEAR of the messing with nature, humans must be ready for the potential harmful effects of changing a natural process. Natural selection provided justification for intercourse only because it produces offshoot, and offshoot is inherently beneficial for humanity. But homosexual acts alone seek only pleasure, and pleasure has no meaningful/useful purpose towards the whole of humanity on balance, and is only temporarily. Henceforth, it should be said that homosexual acts are immoral.

3.42 In proving (1), one has to look into the evolution as a process. Procreation is often a painful and long process, and it often can be called irrational, as it often leads to death. Until now, there was generally a high infant morality rate, due to incompetent methods of baby releasing. But why is sex fun? Moreover, why is sex important? The first question will be dismissed (if the opposition would like to talk about it, he is more than free to invite his boyfriend to do so in the comments section, albeit that would not be “responsible”). The second question, however, is important; let us first assert that people like intercourse more than masturbation. Why is this? It is because of our evolutionary intuition. Our evolutionary intuition urges the libido for the need to send our genes to the future. This is due to the fact that “natural selection is a game” and whoever “produces the most babies” shall win, inevitably. [4]

3.421 But what does homosexual acts all lack? The ability to produce babies; this has been such an important part of having sex. Albeit sex is enjoyable, one must notice that a homosexual male would have many more sexual experiences with other homosexual males when compared to heterosexual males. A theory for this is simply because homosexuals share the same fantasies; heterosexual males would have as many partners as homosexual males if they could. Homosexuality is the exaggeration of gender-preference sexual fantasies. All actions, however, done by it, are inherently meaningless and irrational; it does not advance one’s genes into the future, neither is it safe. [5]

Corollary: It can be said that homosexual acts are irrational and are often looked upon as perversion. This is a justification for homophobia; it is when someone realizes that homosexual acts are irrational, and perverted. This often leads to a reaction against homosexuality, and henceforth, it makes homophobia just.

∴ 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!


Debate Round No. 3


I will now defend my case. I already discussed the definition, so I will start with (2).

Pro reasserts that fear is natural, and therefore not irrational. "Irrational" is defined as "not based on reason, good judgment, or clear thinking." [1] 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. [2] 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." [3] 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."" [4]

(4) Sources

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -

(5) Conclusion

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.
Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by discomfiting 2 years ago
Bsh slaughtered kc....
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
It's okay. You can always vote on any debate I do as long as there is a substantive RFD--I know you normally don't do 1 line RFDs and I know you had good intentions with the CVB, so it's fine.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
sorry about that :/
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
Nvm...both of your votes were already deleted by the mods.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
Uchiha - I mean, I've already reported both your and Faustian's votes as vote bombs. I would appreciate it if you removed it yourself, though.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
And if they aren't removed...?
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
Uchiha and FaustianJustice,

Please remove your votes and provide legitimate RFDs.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
CVBs are no longer allowed on DDO. You report bad votes and wait for the mod to remove them. You do not CVB.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
it was meant to be a CVB of sorts.
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
i was doing a parody of the other vote, bsh... i even used the same misspelling of "inconsistency".

@9space: dude, you voted for the wrong side. bsh is con...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Numidious 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Stronger arguments, beat Pro on basis of rationality > nature. Even if pro's claims were true nature does not create rationality.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Strange to see Bsh1 doing this, considering who his one and only true love is. Anyhow, he showed sufficiently how people should fear gay people, mainly due to rational and emotional instincts, in addition to the STD's caused by all kinds of sex, homophobia in particular. Good try, Kc1999. Good try.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that homophobia, like racism and bigotry, are natural and therefore justified. In ROUND 3 Con demonstrated that nature by itself does not excuse something as justified; for example, human civilization is an attempt for humans to exit (or at least reduce) the inhospitableness, the unpleasantness of nature. So clearly much about nature we humans find repugnant and unacceptable. In ROUND 2 Con shows that only some forms of fear are justified--not all, and definitely not homophobia! Con had the better arguments.