Homophobia is Justified

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.DEFINITIONSThe 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...PREMISE 11. 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.PREMISE 21. 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.PREMISE 3Pro 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.PREMISE 41. 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.CONCLUSIONPro'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.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...3 - http://gayteens.about.com...4 - http://www.allaboutcounseling.com...5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)