The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
daltonslaw
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Its acceptable to be a homophobe

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 4 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 929 times Debate No: 54711
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

I have decided to start this debate after responding to the opinion "Would you let a homophobe babysit your kids".(1)

I maintain that it is completely acceptable to be a homophobe.

Homophobe is defined as: a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.(2)
Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex.(3)

Now, to clarify something very important. I am not a homophobe. Personal attacks as such will result in full forfeit of the debate by my opponent.

First round is acceptance only.

(1) http://www.debate.org...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...
daltonslaw

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate.

Homophobia is something most people, including myself, think is an absurd idea. The reasons behind homophobia can be varied, such as religious, state sanctioned or self denial, among others.(1, 2)

However, even though we may consider someone that holds a homophobic ideology is an idiot. This is only a personal opinion and is not rational. The fact remains that a person is entitled to be a homophobe.(3) To phrase it differently, someone is allowed to hold an opinion that someone else may not agree with.

For example, I may think that all Conservatives are idiots so I am a Conservativephobe. However, no one in their right mind would not allow me to hold this opinion as that would be an infringement of my rights.

In conclusion, even if you consider homophiba wrong, it does not mean that a person is not allowed to hold this view.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://www.pbs.org...
(2) http://www.americancatholic.org...
(3) http://www.un.org...
daltonslaw

Con

I have heard this argument many times, and I always give them the same response. It is not right because it is discrimination. By being a homophobe you are openly discriminating against other people who are different to you. Is this not the same as racism ? Xenophobia? Sexism? I strongly believe it is. You are openly saying a person is inferior to another just by judging their sexual preferences. Some people say that it's not the same because a gay person is "raised, not born". This is not true. That is because sexual orientation is of probably of biological origin, although not enough research has been done, but it is proved that gay people tend to be younger brothers and an identical twin is 52% more prone to be gay if the other twin is. There is also a gene located in the X chromosome that makes people more prone to be gay. Also regardless of if it is born or not what's the problem, gays don't do anything to hurt homophobes. I must concede you one thing: homophobia should not be illegal. As in almost every country there's freedom of thought. However legal does not mean acceptable. I end on this thought and hand the argument to my opponent.
P.S. None of this is intended to be a personal attack, please don't view it as such.
Sources: http://www.theguardian.com...
http://discovermagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks to my opponent. On a side-note, I definitely did not view your response as a personal attack. Now back to the debate.



The argument for the reasons behind sexuality I completely agree with you. However, this has nothing to do with the debate as the proposition for the debate is whether its acceptable to be a homophobe. As such I would ask that voters disregard these comments as they are irrelevant to the debate.



My opponent has stated that homophobes discriminate, just as racists and sexists etc discriminate. However, my opponent has not shown any evidence that a homophobe has to necessarily discriminate. In fact many religious leaders are homophobes yet are accepting of homosexuals as they love all humans.(1) Additionally, the recent resignation of the CEO of Firefox is another example of a homophobe that was not showing discrimination in the work place.(2,3) Granted he does not want gay marriage and for that he is an idiot to infringe on human rights, but he was not firing Mozilla employees for being gay. But, should we be trying to stop the way people vote? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just as the voters on this debate.



Also, if we are to extend my opponents discrimination argument, it holds that it is unacceptable to be a feminist. Feminists are a group that wants equality for women, however this can lead to discrimination against men while this equality balance is being established. If this seems ridiculous, then I have shown you the logical problem with the discrimination argument. Feminists do not discriminate against men, although I am sure there are some feminists that do discriminate against men.



Lastly, my opponent has basically conceded the debate when they said “homophobia should not be illegal. As in almost every country there's freedom of thought. However legal does not mean acceptable.” As I have shown not every homophobe is going to discriminate, so to hold a illogical view is acceptable. If we do not allow this view, then there are a multitude of other views we should not allow such as; belief that the world is flat, the world is less than 40000 years old, etc.(4,5)



It is my opinion that I have successfully defended the proposition of the debate. Their seems to be no logical reason why a person can hold a view that is contrary to another person. The fact that the majority of people think homophobia is absurd does not mean a person can hold this view.



I hand the debate back to my opponent for final rebuttals.



(1) http://www.advocate.com...


(2) https://blog.mozilla.org...


(3) http://www.pinknews.co.uk...


(4) http://theflatearthsociety.org...


(5) https://answersingenesis.org...


daltonslaw

Con

Thank you, let us proceed.
My argument is the exact opposite to your argument about feminism. Feminism is the belief of equality between men and women, women who discriminate against men are called sexists, but homophobia is the belief that being homosexuality is wrong and implies inferiority.
Moreover, I believe my opponent to have misinterpreted my phrase in his last argument, since the topic of the debate was whether being a homophobe was acceptable or not, and I see no way in which its legality legitimizes it.
I would like to thank my opponent for a pleasant and particularly difficult debate and end it on this.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cobo 3 years ago
Cobo
Commenting to vote tomorrow night...
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
See Romanii I told you so :)
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@ Renegade. Thanks for the comments. Its always good to know people are reading debates and showing interest. Hope you can get your three debates under the belt soon and can start enjoying voting as well.
Posted by Renagade 3 years ago
Renagade
I am unable to vote but I have decided to share my opinion to this debate regardless. This was an impressive debate. I initially sided with the pro for the very reason that I respect everyone's opinions whether I agreed with them or not and being a "homophobe" is indeed an opinion or description of a persons feelings. However, I was swayed by the con when it was said "homophobia should not be illegal. As in almost every country there's freedom of thought. However legal does not mean acceptable." The definition of homophobe was provided, however, acceptable was not. Acceptable has several definitions but I refer to the second definition of the link provided. The contender proficiently provided an accurate response as to why Homophobia should not be acceptable due to it's immoral foundation. I continue to respect the opinions from a homophobe. I support it's legal foundation to be a homophobe. But I concede that it is indeed not acceptable to be a homophobe, nor should it be.
Posted by Jman0056 3 years ago
Jman0056
This should be a no brainer. If you're an aracniphobe does that mean you will be socially unacceptable because you are afraid of spiders? No. People have a choice to be homophobes or not. If you're offended theirs nothing anybody can do. You will just have to accept this.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@ Romanii: Maybe, as the debate will surely pull at the heart string of many people. As such the votes will probably be personal opinion. So lets see what happens.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Lol this should be an easy win for you. It is impossible to objectively say there is something wrong with believing something, if that belief does not harm others.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Sure its okay to be a racist. You can hold whatever opinion you want.
Posted by dmussi12 3 years ago
dmussi12
Is it ok to be racist? Not trying to antagonize, I just want to see how far you extend your reasoning.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I have no problem with homosexuality. I just believe if someone want to be a homophobe it is completely acceptable.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
Cobo
iamanatheistandthisiswhydaltonslawTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm...This debate was very strange. I honestly wish I could know what the character limit was as at first I thought it was extremely low. I feel Pro did not understand Con's arguments even though these exact arguments were actually weak. The source point was easily won by the Pro, but the argument was only lost by the Con giving up in the final round. Also please try to focus on the resolution the entire time. Off tangent argument tend to confuse not only the voters but the debaters themselves. Also pro's kept insulting people of a certain viewpoint which is very unacceptable if you are trying to show how this viewpoint is acceptable.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
iamanatheistandthisiswhydaltonslawTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's premises were that homophobia is discriminatory. However pro shot this premise down. Con also conceded that homophobia shouldn't be illegal. I had to go to the dictionary to look up the term acceptable. Hopefully you guys can deal with semantics right off the back next time. I found the relevant definition of the word that should be applied to this debate as summed up is "tolerable". By acknowledging that it shouldn't be illegal you are saying that we should tolerate homophobia. I'm kind of disappointed in the other voters. This debate isn't about whether homophobia is right. It's about tolerance, and pro proved his case. Sources to pro based on the fact they were very relevant to his argument and better than con's.
Vote Placed by Guidestone 3 years ago
Guidestone
iamanatheistandthisiswhydaltonslawTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had terrible conduct he called multitude of people idiots which just wrong. Con had more convincing arguments such as like "However legal does not mean acceptable.", and Pros response that not every homophobic person discriminates makes it acceptable. Also, not every racist discriminates, but pro thinks that is not acceptable. However, I think they both did some bad things in their arguments.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
iamanatheistandthisiswhydaltonslawTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made it clear that homophobia doesn't necessarily involve discrimination against homosexuals, while Con ignored this objection an simply retorted that " homophobia is the belief that being homosexuality is wrong and implies inferiority." That inferiority part is simply his personal opinion, not the proper definition of homophobia that was given in the opening statement. I didn't see any compelling argument why every single homophobe would find homosexuals inferior, and Pro had made it clear that some homophobes treat homosexuals as their equals. I can be homophobe as in someone who thinks homosexuality is disgusting, and yet have homosexual peers and consider them superior to me in intelligence and sociability. If that was the case, then the new definition of homophobia that Con brought up falls flat on its face, because I can maintain the existence of groups of people that are superior to me and are in the same time people who I hate or fear for some actions.