The Instigator
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cobalt
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Cobalt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 81543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals because homophobes are less likely to befriend gays in which decreases the chance of experiencing unwanted crushes from gays, unwanted friendship issues from gays and unwanted sexual advances from gays.

Straight crush stories
Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Teens Expert

5 types of straight crushes
Ellen Friedrichs, LGBT Teens Expert
Cobalt

Con

This is a very interesting topic. If my opponent's user name hold any truth, he likely believes in the premise. As a homosexual myself, I thoroughly disagree, for a variety of personal reasons, which I will outline here, as well as giving them more general context.

If it is agreeable to my opponent, we'll start by saying that "many" will mean "a significant amount", as opposed to something like '100', or some similar arbitrary number. I'll jump right into my arguments.

1. Only beneficial if it is beneficial on weight, all things considered.

My opponent has listed a few reasons as to why he feels homophobia benefits heterosexuals. I will now present reasons as to why it is not beneficial, then weigh all of the advantages and disadvantage.

Negative Social Stigma: In today's world, epecially in many first world countries, 'homophobia' is quickly becoming synonymous with 'bigotted', as far as public perception is concerned. Part of being successful and respected is being a person worthy of respect, in the public's eyes. Many people in this world refuse to respect people they classify as biggots and actively seek to "knock the bigot down a few ranks". By practicing homophobia, one has the disadvantage of signficant credibility and face loss.

Is in many cases against the law: Many companies have included "sexual-orientation" under their non-discrimination clauses. In fact, it is very difficult to find a large US company these days that does not include "sexual orientation" as a protected class. Additionally, great movements are taking place to change this protection at the federal level. By practicing homophobia, you are discriminating against gays in some fashion, which can be against the law. The disadvantage here: Reduces employment opportunities in most every field.

Can damage friendships with other non-homophobic people
: By stating that you would avoid 'unwanted friendship issues', but you failed to consider that a homophobic attitude can directly cause friendship issues with straight friends who do not support that ideology. It's worth mentioning that gay-sympathizing straights outweigh homosexuals themselves, meaning you're actually more likely to experience friendship issues should you practice homophobia.

It's also necessary to make a point here about my opponent's other two reasons for homophobia, regarding unwanted sexual advances/crushes. Crushes and sexual advances are often independent of whether friendships have formed or not. Consider, for example, the number of unique situations in which a stranger sexually approached you, as compared to one of your friends approaching you. You will likely find that you have more to fear from strangers (sexually) than from friends. This is simply due to the fact that the number of strangers in your life far outnumber your friends.

There is also a considerable stigma against gay men approaching straight friends, sexually. While it still happens, this stigma makes it so straights are much more likely to be approached by woman friends than gay friends. This is due to the fact that gays, while interested in men, also understand the concept of "heterosexuality" and will often respect it. To say otherwise is to paint gay men as a people that first and foremost care about sex, with friendships secondary. I can say from personal experience and from just speaking logically, that most people, including gays, do not approach life this way.

2. Being homophobic toward gays vs avoiding gays.

Next, it's important to note that there is a difference between being homophobic and avoiding gays. Homophobia is a strong dislike of homosexuals, for any number of reasons, often accompanied by intollerance and hatefullness. The opponent attempts to list some advantages to being homophobic, implying that homophobia is the only way to accomplish those goals. However, one can simply avoid homosexuals, without bearing and hate or intollerance toward them.

Conclusion

I didn't speak much on this issue yet, since there hasn't been much to respond to. What I have shown is that there are many disadvantages to being homophobic and that the advantages my opponent submitted arent nearly as advantageous as he believes. It is clear that it is not benefecial for heterosexuals to be homophobic, as the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

"Negative Social Stigma: In today's world, epecially in many first world countries, 'homophobia' is quickly becoming synonymous with 'bigotted'"

This is highly subjective in which makes your rebuttal invalid. My argument is not subjective. Homophobia Undoubtedly benefits heterosexuals for the reasons I Stated In Round one

Social stigma depends on your social environment . All of my friends are homophobes. I don't have any problems and I'm very homophobic. Also, I'm intelligent enough to debate anyone who disagrees and shut them down
As an atheist, I would simply mention some studies that shows homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances. How could they logically downplay a person for avoiding unwanted sexual advances? People usually surround themselves with like minded people. Therefore, your claim is irrelevant and it does not debunk my claim. The fact remains, homophobes are less likely to be friend gays in which prevents unwanted crushes from gays, unwanted sexual advances from gays, and discomfort in friendships with gays. At the end of the day, it's beneficial to homophobes.

" as far as public perception is concerned. Part of being successful and respected is being a person worthy of respect, in the public's eyes. Many people in this world refuse to respect people they classify as biggots and actively seek to "knock the bigot down a few ranks". By practicing homophobia, one has the disadvantage of signficant credibility and face loss"

You're basically saying homophobes could face discrimination and bigotry because of their personal views. It's against the law to discriminate against people in a workplace because of their personal beliefs. So, the person who does the disrespecting faces risk of losing, not the homophobe. I wish someone would discriminate against me because of my personal views.

Again, this is highly subjective... the person who does the disrespecting usually gets the short end of the stick in my environment and that includes workplaces. A person can easily get fired for disrespecting someone at work place. The homiphobe and his personal views are protected under the employment discrimination policy What makes you think homophobes would even tolerate disrespect? I wouldn't. What you see on youtube usually doesn't represent what's really going on. Just last week I saw some homophobic boys clowning a boy for looking gay. I didn't see anyone disrespecting them. I called a gay men the F word the other day for staring at me. Nobody said a word. Even if they had of said something, I could have debated them and won. I'm an atheist. I'm not an easy win even if a homophobe work with a bunch of

Even if a homophobe worked with a bunch of gay militants, homophobia can be silent. Homophobes dont have to confess to being homophobic to practice homophobia. I work with gays but I would never befriend them or hang out with them. I still hate them. If they ever made sexual advances towards me, I would get there a gay butts fired FAST and laugh about it because I hate gays. Also, discriminating against a person at a place of employment because of their personal views is in fact bigotry. Not getting a promotion because of personal views is discrimination. The company will be risking a major lawsuit.

"Is in many cases against the law: Many companies have included "sexual-orientation" under their non-discrimination" "clauses. In fact, it is very difficult to find a large US company these days that does not include "sexual orientation" as a protected class"

This is a straw man fallacy.

I didn't mention anything about discrimination or breaking the law. Refusing to befriend or hang out with gays is perfectly legal in all circumstances but it is considered homophobia. A part of the definition of homophobia is 'disgust' of gays or aversion.

"Additionally, great movements are taking place to change this protection at the federal level. By practicing homophobia, you are discriminating against gays in some fashion, which can be against the law. The disadvantage here: Reduces employment opportunities in most every field"

This is a straw man fallacy.

Again, practicing homophobia doesn't require breaking the law or discrimination. Refusing to befriend or hang out with gays is considered homophobic.

"Can damage friendships with other non-homophobic people"

It could be Vice versa so your claim means nothing.

Non homophobic people can damage their friendship with homophobes by being intolerant of their views. Also, your claim is subjective. It depends on who values the friendship the most. if anyone has a problem with my homophobia, they can see the door because I wouldn't like them after that anyways.

"By stating that you would avoid 'unwanted friendship issues', but you failed to consider that a homophobic attitude can directly cause friendship issues with straight friends who do not support that ideology"

Again, this is another subjective claim. It depends on who needs who. I don't want to be friends with anyone who has a problem with my homophobic views. I initiated ending romantic relationships. if a woman is pro gay, she might be secretly gay so I don't trust her.

"It's worth mentioning that gay-sympathizing straights outweigh homosexuals themselves, meaning you're actually more likely to experience friendship issues should you practice homophobia"

Again, this is another subjective claim. What makes you think non-homophobes won't create friendship problems by Being bigoted towards a person because of their homophobic views? It also depends on who values the friendship more. I personally devalue any friend who has a problem with my homophobic views. I wouldn't care about them anyway

"It's also necessary to make a point here about my opponent's other two reasons for homophobia, regarding unwanted sexual advances/crushes. Crushes and sexual advances are often independent of whether friendships have formed or not"

This is not true.

According to gay teen expert 'Ellen Friedrich', the majority of straight crushes happens with a gay person who has become friends with a non-homophobic heterosexual of the same sex.

"There is also a considerable stigma against gay men approaching straight friends, sexually. While it still happens, this stigma makes it so straights are much more likely to be approached by woman friends than gay friends"

According to gay teen expert Ellen friedrich, gays find ways around this. Gays usually befriend heterosexuals first. In many cases, they become best friends. In many cases, the gay person is still in the closet. They intentionally get close to their crush until they can be honest. I'm glad you mentioned this. This is the very reason why homophobia is beneficial to heterosexuals. Gays are less likely to even come out of the closet to a homophobe. They are better off finding a gay friendly crush. Better yet, they probably wouldn't befriend the homophobe in the first place because they know he would hate who they really are. This ultimately saves the homophobe from issues concerning gay crushes, sexual advances and friendship issues. That's why homophobia serves as a friend filtering system. It filters out all the closet gays. It's completely beneficial.

In conclusion, your argument is filled with subjective claims and straw man fallacies. Your argument does not change the fact that homophobia serves as a friend filtering system to filter out all the closet gays, militants gays, gay activists ect. in which ultimately benefits to heterosexual.
Cobalt

Con

I thank the opponent for his lengthy and well-argued response. Before I respond, I'd like to say that I respect the opponent for not utilizing his homophobia in this debate. Specifically, he had the opportunity to use the "F word" and decided not to. I thank him for that. However, in order to make a point, I might have to use some obscene words myself. I intend to illicit an emotional response from my opponent toward the end of this round.

I'll refute my opponent's arguments in the order given.

Homophobia as a negative social stigma

I will admit that my opponent is right, to some extent. A homophobic person does not always face a negative social stigma due to their beliefs, especially when they surround themselves with other like minded people. However, my opponent cannot deny that there exist people in this world who do not respect homophobes. He also cannot deny that sometimes one must unavoidably form relationships with such people. Considering these two facts, it is necessarily a fact that a homophobe will have relationship(s) damaged due to their homophobia. Even if it is not a common ordeal, like it might not be for my opponent, who surrounds himself with very like minded people, in our very connected world relationships in which homophobia hurts the relationship cannot be avoided.


Additionally, on this point, my opponent concludes that 'homophobia ... prevents unwanted crushes from gay, unwanted sexual advances from gays ...'. However, I have made arguments showing that these advances have little to do with friendship, which my opponent may or may not cover later. If not, these advantages cannot go to him.

Homophobia in the workplace

My opponent attempts to deflect my legal argument by claiming that he has 'a legal right to homophobia'. While this is true, at a base level, many corporations consider sexual orientation to be a legal protection. There are no laws that consider homophobia to be a protected status. My opponent attempts to argue that his rights to discriminate against gays are equivalent to the protected status of gays -- but in the workplace this simply isn't the case.


It is just as if my opponent was arguing a right to racism in the workplace. Blacks have legal protections, racists do not.

Quiet Homophobia

My opponent briefly argues that in the workplace a homophobe can simply remain silent regarding their beliefs. While this is true, this is not the type of homophobia my opponent seems to be arguing for everywhere else in his piece. He repeatedly talks about using homophobia as a tool to gain certain advantages. Clearly if he is quiet about his homophobia in the work place, no advantages can be had and he isn't practicing homophobia in the manner that he is generally arguing for in his speech.

Also, a brief note. I'm sure the audience is aware that you are an atheist. A quick look at my profile will show I am also an atheist. However, that is a completely irrelevant point in this debate and there's really no reason to keep bringing it up.

Lastly on this point, the opponent says I am utilizing the straw man fallacy, that homophobia is not the same as discrimination. He says that refusing to forge relationships with gays is entirely legal. However, he seems completely unaware of how companies function. It is necessary for staff to get along with one another in order to maximize profits. If my opponent were to get a job at some place and his boss were to tell him he had to work on a project with a gay guy, he is in quite a predicament. Either a) He can complain about this to the boss, citing his homophobia. The boss would quickly determine that this is discrimination and fire him. b) He can keep quiet, in which case he is practicing a type of homophobia that yields no advantages. In this scenario, he'd still be working closely with a gay and would still be open to all of the 'advances' that go with that.

Homophobia Damaging Relationships

My opponent essentially blows this argument off, stating that "[the relationship loss] could be vice-versa, so [my] claim means nothing". He repeatedly states that this is a subjective claim on my end. For now, I'll leave this argument alone, in lieu of more objective arguments.

Straight Crushes and Their Occurrences

My opponent cites one "Ellen Friedrich" multiple times, but does not source her anywhere. After some research, I found that she is indeed a "gay teen expert", on about.com. She has a BS in women's studies and an MA in human sexuality. It's worth noting that a woman whose only science degree is in women's studies is hardly an expert on this topic. This is furthered by the fact that her choice method of disseminating information is on a blog linked to about.com. Her claim that 'straight crushes are most common [in gay/straight relationships] holds no water when investigated more closely.

As I stated previously, this is a pure numbers game. The amount of gay people who are not friends with you far outweighs the number that are (for any given person). Due to this huge numerical difference, even if a gay friend is twice as likely to hit on you as a gay stranger, significantly more strangers will hit on you than gay friends. Again, this is due to the fact that the "average person" might have around 5 gay friends, while there are 30 million other gay men who are not their friend

This makes my opponent's claim of advantages here only marginally advantageous, bordering on ineffective.

A little after this point, the opponent deflects my "stigma against coming on to straight friends" argument by again invoking Ms. Ellen. she says that "in many cases closeted gays befriend heterosexuals in order to get close to them to be honest about their crush". Again, these are just unsubstantiated claims made by an unqualified woman. Even if the are true, it clearly refers to "closeted men", who homophobes cannot avoid, since their sexuality is a secret. He states that gays are 'less likely to come out to homophobes', but does not support this with any evidence. I can speak, from my first hand experience as a gay man watching other gay's relationships with straights develop over time, that homophobia does nothing to stop a gay from crushing on them. In fact, in many cases, the gay is particularly drawn to them by a 'savior complex', with the desire to change their minds about homosexuals and show that they aren't the disgusting people homophobes make them out to be.

A Final Argument

I'll be introducing a refined version of my previous "damages relationships" argument, specifically dealing with family. It is nearly always that case that a gay child has heterosexual parents. If parents were to practice homophobia, it would invariably damage the relationship with the child. Additionally, a homophobe would likely face complications from other family members who support the 'gay in the family'. Unlike friends, one cannot so easily throw away and avoid family. Considering that nearly all gays have straight family members, this issue is systemic and is a significant disadvantage to homophobia

Conclusion

My opponent did an excellent job pointing out the subjective nature of many of my arguments. However, the one argument that he did not adequately deflect was the argument regarding the law against discrimination, specifically in business. I have shown that homophobia damages familial relations. I have also demonstrated that homophobia only marginally decreases the chances of being hit on by gays and that his 'friend filtering system' does little to stop this.

Considering that the negative consequence of discrimination in the work place and in the family outweighs the marginal (very small) reduction in being hit on by gays, it is clear that it is not net beneficial for heterosexuals to be homophobic.

Additionally, I remind the opponent that he has the Burden of Proof. He should use this next round to introduce any evidence solidifying his position.

I look forward to the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

"However , my opponent cannot deny that there exist people in this world who do not respect homophobes"

My opponent fails to see that there will always be someone who doesn't respect somebody for something. Some people don't respect Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, gays, homophobes, transsexuals, bisexuals, whites, blacks, Mexicans ect. but most people have a common understanding that they must not let their personal dislikes jeopardize important obstacles to reach their goals. My opponent fails to see that most people know that verbally attacking or disrespecting people in a workplace or school because they don't like something about the person could cause undesirable consequences for themselves.

"He also cannot deny that sometimes one must unavoidably form relationships with such people. Considering these two facts, it is necessarily a fact that a homophobe will have relationship(s) damaged due to their homophobia. Even if it is not a common ordeal, like it might not be for my opponent"

What my opponent fails to understand is, the benefits of homophobia involves homophobes' personal lives. When school is out and the work day is over, the homophobe is now in complete control of his environment. The benefits of homophobia involves homophobes' individual code of ethics. The regulations that the homophobe put together to give himself a comfortable, enjoyable social and personal life. An example is, the homophobe meets a new friend and says," I am NOT into that gay crap and I can't stand homos". " I don't even want to be around them". That's the filtering system and the test.. At that point, the new friend can accept the homophobes' views or disappear. If he disappears, the filtering system is working and the homophobe is happy. I know because I'm talking about myself.

"He repeatedly talks about using homophobia as a tool to gain certain advantages. Clearly if he is quiet about his homophobia in the work place, no advantages can be had and he isn't practicing homophobia in the manner that he is generally arguing for in his speech"

I don't think my opponent understood my argument. My point is, homophobia doesn't have to be exercised in the workplace because the homophobe can use sexual harassment policies instead of homophobia. Again, the benefits of homophobia involves the homophobes personal life.

"However, I have made arguments showing that these advances have little to do with friendship, which my opponent may or may not cover later. If not, these advantages cannot go to him"

5 types of straight crushes by Ellen Friedrich (LGBT teen expert)

Quote
"It is really common for teens to develop crushes on close friends. This isn't surprising since some of the qualities that draw you to a buddy can also be a romantic draw. But crushing on a pal can have its downsides"

Homophobia is in fact an avoidance behavior. Using homophobia to avoid having gay friends is in fact beneficial because according to an expert, gays COMMONLY develop straight crushes on their straight friends and its very common. Therefore, avoiding having gay friends is beneficial to homophobes because it prevents the homophobe from experiencing unwanted crushes discomfort and sexual advances from gays. Out of sight means out of mind. Avoiding having gay friends eliminates many issues that could occur if a gay person becomes romantically or sexually interested.

"many corporations consider sexual orientation to be a legal protection. There are no laws that consider homophobia to be a protected status. My opponent attempts to argue that his rights to discriminate against gays are equivalent to the protected status of gays -- but in the workplace this simply isn't the case"

This is a straw man fallacy. A part of the definition of homophobia is an 'aversion to'. or disgust. Therefore, homophobia doesn't have to involve discrimination. Again, the benefits of homophobia involves the homophobes personal life. Corporations and companies don't have the right to terminate someone for refusing to befriend people in their personal lives. Using my opponents logic, white women can get terminated for refusing to have asian friends in their personal lives.

"It is necessary for staff to get along with one another in order to maximize profits. If my opponent were to get a job at some place and his boss were to tell him he had to work on a project with a gay guy, he is in quite a predicament. Either a) He can complain about this to the boss, citing his homophobia"

Again, there is a difference between work and personal life. If the gay attempts to show any sexual interest on the job, sexual harassment policies can be used to benefit the homophobe. Therefore, sexual harassment policies replaces homophobia at a job. As soon as Work is over, homophobia replaces sexual harassment policies. When the work day is over, the homophobe is not required to accept the gay into his personal life.

Instead of calling your claims, I'm just going to respond to them.

You claim it's a numbers game. You also admitted that there's a stigma against gays flirting with heterosexual men. I have yet to witness an expert claim that gay men commonly come on to Heterosexual strangers of the same sex. On the other hand, expert Ellen Friedrich admits that around 800 gays on her site alone have developed straight crushes on a non homophobic heterosexual friend.

How about you prove that it's common for gays to come on to heterosexual men who are strangers. Gays play it safe. That's probably why they prefer the "become his friend" tactic .

Just to give you the benefit of the doubt, even if gays commonly came on to strangers who are heterosexual, it takes about 3 seconds to call the gay the 'F' word and walk off. On the other hand, committing to a friendship with a gay who ends up having a straight crush may require more energy such as changing my number, blocking his number, issuing a restraining order , ect. All those issues can simply be avoided by refusing to befriend gays and that is in fact homophobia because a part of the definition of homophobia is an 'aversion to' or disgust and disgust is an avoidance behavior.

My opponent mentions homophobia between a parent and a gay child. This is a straw man fallacy. I clearly mentioned that homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals because refusing to befriend gays decreases the chances of experiencing gay crush issues in which is common among heterosexuals who befriend gays according to an expert. Children don't develop romantic crushes on their parents so that claim is irrelevant and a straw man.

In conclusion,

Homophobia has a broad definition in which is beneficial to gays because they could label anyone a homophobe for saying or doing any little thing that's negative concerning gays. However, this broad definition benefits my argument. Again, a part of the definition of homophobia is an 'aversion to'. Therefore, avoiding befriending gays is in fact homophobia. The facts remain. According to an expert, gays COMMONLY develop crushes on their straight friends. Therefore, non-homophobic heterosexuals who welcomed gays in their life as friends increase the chances of experiencing unwanted gay crushes. On the other hand, homophobes benefit by exercising homophobia to avoid having gay friends in which prevents unwanted gay crushes. Heterosexuals don't befriend gays to deal with gay crushes. Using homophobia to avoid this problem is in fact beneficial.

Because of the broad definition of homophobia, homophobia doesn't have to include discrimination, violence or bullying gays. Simply avoiding gays is considered homophobic because 'aversion to' is a part of the definition of homophobia in which is simply an avoidance behavior. Therefore, my opponent's argument about discrimination is irrelevant because it is a straw man fallacy. Even if there were a million gay supporters and only 100 homophobes. Only 20 good friends are needed.
Cobalt

Con

Final round, here we go. I'll be going along in the order my opponent made his last argument, though instead of quoting everything he said, I'll label it with something clear and concise.

The Existence of Homophobe-phobes and Their Relationship With Homophobes

My opponent is missing most of the point of my argument. We are currently weighing the opponent's benefits (not getting hit on, avoiding unwanted advances). I stated that if he is to actively practice homosexuality in the work place, it would have dire negative consequences. He has responded by saying that he really only intends to be actively homophobic in his personal life, "outside of school or work." He forgets that most of the relationships we form are in situations like work and school, while we don't form nearly as many in our private time.

If he is actively homosexual in such situations, the negative consequences outweigh the benefits.

If he is not actively homosexual in such situations, then he will still be open to unwanted advances, as the majority of his relationships will be formed in these situations. Either way, it's a net loss.

Homophobia as an Avoidance Behavior

My previous argument pretty much covers this. If you are not practicing that avoidance behavior in the office/classroom, then it is not effective. It is in these places that the majority of relationships are formed. What the opponent is left with is a marginal benefit -- one that only comes into play in a select few situations.

Homophobia in the Work Place

My opponent tries to make a semantic argument, claiming that an "aversion to" or a "disgust" of homosexuals is not discrimination, when in fact the definition of discrimination is "a prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things". If a homophobe acts on this disgust or diversion, he is discriminating and is violating the law. The fact that he believes homophobia isn't discrimination does not affect whether it actually is discrimination.

Again, my argument assumes he is practicing discrimination in the work place. If he is not, see my previous argument. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that you can be fired for what you do in your spare time [http://www.workplacefairness.org...]. So someone who is actively homophobic in their spare time can legally be fired for their activities.

This is a major disadvantage of being homophobic and will come into play once we weigh the advantages and the disadvantages.

Who Hits On You More? Strangers or Friends

My opponent again invokes Ms. Ellen, who I have shown has little credibility. He states that she has over 800 gays on her site that have developed a crush on a straight friend. This is not surprising, as her site is specifically aimed at gay teenagers. It is not surprising that a gay teenager who crushed on a straight friend wound up on a site that discusses and gives advice on precisely that issue.

This is a numbers argument. Let me give you an example. Let's assume the average gay-friendly person has 5 gay friends. Let's also assume that they live in a reasonably sized city (2 million) and that 10% of the men there are gay. That's 100,000 gay men. Now let's assume, through day-to-day activities, that you encounter about 500 gay men in a year.

If a gay friend is 10 times more likely to hit on you than a gay stranger, you can still expect that you will be hit on 10 strangers per every 1 time you get hit on by a friend. Even if we eliminate the gay friend variable, the likelihood of getting hit on doesn't dramatically decrease. This is what I meant when I said that homophobia is only marginally advantageous in this area -- because there is only a marginal reduction in the number of times you get hit on my a member of the same sex.

As for the argument about dealing with unwanted advances, my opponent claims that the homophobe is in a superior position because he can say "F off". My opponent seems to be implying that one has to move mountains in order to tell another person they aren't interested, when in reality it goes something like this: "That's very nice of you, but I'm not gay." The 'benefit' of having to use less syllables to express disinterest is hardly a benefit at all.

Gays in the Family

My opponent claims I used the Straw Man fallacy (something he claims a lot and doesn't seem to understand) when talking about the gays in the family issue. I'm not arguing that it applies to his advantages, rather I'm arguing that it is a large disadvantage.

When homophobia causes damage to relationships, that is a negative. Unlike with friends, gay family members cannot be so easily pushed away and, even if they are, there is likely to be pushback from other members of the family. The fact that a child wouldn't be attracted to his parents doesn't take away from the fact that a homophobic father's actions would invariably cause damage to the family.

-------

Before I begin my weighing process, I'd like to point out one issue I see in my opponent's conclusion. He states that he has proven that gays "commonly" develop crushes on straight friends, but has presented no evidence of this. In fact, you'll notice he hasn't presented any links to any evidence whatsoever. He casually brings up things that Ms. Ellen supposedly said, but does not prove this in an form.

Let's Weigh Things

This is the part where we weigh the advantages and disadvantages of being homophobic, in order to determine whether it is net beneficial.

Advantages:
1. Marginally reduces chances of being hit on by gays.
2. Marginally reduces chancess of being crushed on by a gay.

Disadvantages:
1. Hurts familial relations.
2. Can cause issues in the work place.

I've only presented my two biggest disadvantages, so that there is a one-to-one comparison of Ads to Disads.

Let's run through the advantages. His first is that he can slightly reduce the chances of being hit on by gays. I have proven this is indeed only marginal. But more to the point, this isn't much of an advantage at all. Say the opponent does get hit on by a gay guy. The absolute worst thing this can be considered is 'mildly inconvenient'. It in no way physically, psychologically or economically affects the person being hit on. Additionally, it takes about 10 seconds of time to end the ecounter. The opponent's second advantage is much the same. The 'advantage' isn't much of an advantage at all.

As for the disadvantages, they are quite significant. The first relates to the family, one of the most important social structures in everyone's lives. When there are issues here, they often cause systemic issues. Not only does one have to deal with the financial ramifications that a pissed off family can levy, but they have to deal with the emotional fallout.

The second disadvantage is also important. It is impossible to get ahead, or even survive long, in this world without a stable job capable of generating income. Homophobia dramatically increases the risk of complications arising in the work place that directly lead to getting fired because of discrimination. 30 years ago, this might not have been an issue, but in today's world discrimination of protected classes is punished with impunity.

Conclusion

It is clear. The disadvantages of being homophobic far outweight the advantages, if you can even call them that. An unstable family life and job are not worth the avoiding a mild inconvenience. What is not net-beneficial to a person is not beneficial.

I have made my case. It is clear -- Homophobia is not beneficial to many heterosexuals.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
Because some gay men don't use adequate protection in sexual activities, all gay guys should be avoided? The difference between gays and straights is that when gays aren't careful in the bedroom, he gets an std. When a woman is careful, she gets pregnant. Considering that 1.2 million abortions are carried out every year and who knows how many people use the morning after pill, I'd say that gays aren't as deviant as you make them out to be.
Posted by retrovision 1 year ago
retrovision
What annoys me is that people accuse me of being "homophobic" if I discuss homosexuality realistically. Reality is that 18% of gay men have HIV. Reality is that half of college aged gay men are expected to have HIV by 50. The reality is that every time that happens, somebody's got to cough up $400,000 or we can watch them die a death you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. I've seen AIDS kill people. Reality is that 6000 gay men are still dying of it every year. Reality is that gay couples are 5% monogamous and straights run 80%. Reality is that straights get about 8 years out of a committed relationship and gays don't get 2. Reality is that gays suffer at least 4X every negative life outcome from drug addiction to depression to suicide. Reality is that gay men cost double in lifetime medical costs compared to a straight man. Reality is that thousands of women every year, mostly black, get HIV from men on the "low down". Reality is that gay men have resurrected syphilis from being completely eradicated and brought it back for us all to enjoy. Reality is that gay's have come up with some new diseases never seen before and some antibiotic resistant old favorites.

Frankly, I'm having trouble seeing how anybody could think encouraging homosexual activity without fingers crossed and talking out the side of their face.
Posted by Molzahn 1 year ago
Molzahn
Interesting premise.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Sarai.K82
BlackHomophobicAtheistsCobaltTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought both parties debated civilly. Both parties articulated their points well in terms of spelling and grammar. I was not persuaded by Pros points and found them sophistic in substance. I though that con did a more than reasonable job in taking apart the idea that a quiet, background homophobia benefits heterosexuals.