Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

"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.