Homophobia is Justified

Time constraints :(Propositions (1) under Refutation of Oppositions PREMISE 1 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 2. 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 purposeP2. Homosexual sex has no useful purposeC. Homosexual acts are not meaningfulDefending 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! Citations: [1] http://tinyurl.com...; [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...