Homophobia is Justified

Propositions (1) on Definitions of "Justified" 1. Quoting the oppositions definition: "to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable" can be provided as two sentences. "To provide a reason for (something)" or "To provide a good reason for (something)" Another definition of justified is "to show something to be just, right or reasonable" Propositions (2) on the "Phobia" in Question and Irrationality 2. The psychological definition of phobia is in itself irrational; the sociological/political definition of "phobia" however is by nature often based upon the emotions of hate, fear and anger. As fear has been properly addressed in the last round, the analysis of the neural correlates of hate must be provided, to show that the phobia in question is not "irrational" 2.1 The Neural Correlates of Hate can be tracked to several parts of the brain; these parts of the brain often employ rational reasoning. An example of this would be the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is unusually active when the emotions of hatred are activated; at this point, it must be noted that the neural correlates of fear and anger (amygdala, ACC) were not activated during the intense period of hate. The prefrontal cortex is the "reasoning" part of the brain. An undeveloped PFC (prefrontal cortex) can mean a huge deficit in reasoning skills. [1][2][3] 2.2 This often means that in hatred, rational reasoning is often employed; but one firstly needs to distinguish between "true" hate and "fake" hate. "Fake" hate is often accompanied by anger; "true" hate is a more passive emotion. In fact, accordingly to a study, "true" hatred is often passive. True hatred is sustained; as after an increase in hate, all parts of the brain except for right superior frontal gyrus, which remains mildly active. Ironically, "true" hate transforms a personality, as the right superior frontal gyrus is often correlated with self-awareness. [1][4] The characteristics of true hate conform to the following (accordingly to Sternberg's Triangular Hate Theory): A Negation of Intimacy (Distancing) in Hate: Repulsion and Disgust B/ Passion in Hate: Anger-Fear C/ Decision-Commitment in Hate: Devaluation-Diminution Through Contempt This is the "phobia" we currently discuss, and the "phobia" we characterize as "homophobia" 2.3 The neural correlates of hate prove one thing; that this hatred is often rational, and often is sustained. ∴ Homophobia results to hate, which activates an area of the brain that is the basis of all human reasoning. Henceforth, homophobia is not irrational. Note: Whatever is based on emotion is not inherently irrational, and is impossibly unjust, for the emotions of affection are based entirely on emotion. If affection were based entirely on rational sense, then it would be very hard to find a partner. Propositions (3) on the Harm-Factor of Homosexuality 3. Homosexuality’s perception as harmful is natural, which justifies homosexuality 3.1 Take the following syllogism for example: P1. All threat-perception are natural P2. All natural factors are justified C. All Threat-perception is justified Star Test: P1. All t* is N P2. All N* is J C. All t is J* VALID 3.11 (Defense of Premise One) As stated in the last round, threat perception against a certain type of people is often a reaction against certain societal changes via the majority. Let us take the mere example; if a room is filled with liberals, but a rising trend of conservatives are coming to that room, there would be a backlash of the room filled with liberals against this conservative influx. The same can be said about the homosexual society; due to an increase in homosexuals during the last 10 years, it can be said that the backlash against this is often normal. This is due to an offshoot of Kin Altruism; the need to protect those similar to one another. 3.12 (Defense of Premise Two) all natural factors are justified, as there are no ratiocination to prove it unjustifiable. For example, if we were to attempt to prove a Tsunami unjustified, we must take into account that all actions unjustified can often be prevented. For justice is an abstract virtue. Whatever is abstract can often be defined differently, but justice is also a virtue that can be applied to one thing, and not applied to another. When justice is applied to an action, a belief, then justice can be taken away from that belief, action, making it unjustified. But whatever is not unjustified is justified by either (1) nature, or by (2) morality. If something is justified via morality that means that the action is morally correct on balance. But if something is justified via nature, then no matter how “morally immoral” it maybe, there is absolutely no way to say that it is unjustified; for humans neither ordered it, nor did they desire it. 3.13 The third premise is the natural corollary of the last two propositions.3.2 But apart from this, there is rational reasoning for one to believe in the “stereotypical” analysis of the homosexual society. Albeit this may be due to stereotype threats, (which to those who deny such a action, is a real psychological apparatus) we may briefly address some of such fears. 3.21 (On HIV and other STDs) The LGBTQ community has had, as the opposition affirms, higher rates of STD infections than the heterosexuals. Albeit the opposition attempts to reason this via the fact that “safe sex” was non-existent factor during the HIV epidemics, this may not be true. In men, the most common way to HIV infections derive from having intercourse. In fact, anal intercourse is a very dangerous pleasure activity to engage in, with an 18 times more likelihood of infecting HIV. [5][6] Apart from HIV, HPV and Syphilis is also increasing; as of 2011, 63% of all those who have Syphilis, primary and secondary, derive from the many groups of the LGBTQ community, but they are most likely to be bisexuals and gays. [7] 3.22 (On the Teleology of Homosexual Acts) The many “stereotypical behaviors” of the homosexual community is no different from the empirical evidences that we are receiving. Accordingly, Homosexuals are seven times more likely to be addicted to drugs [8]. However, many aspects of the “Gay Lifestyle” may be seen as simply perverted to some. This justification is based upon the assertions that it is unnatural; for the practice of homosexual intercourse goes against the “main purpose” of sexual intercourse, that is the production of offshoot. Natural selection favors those whose practices produce favorable outcome; that is why the human brain is designed to have sexual lust. Natural selection often discards those species whose practices have almost no point; natural selection is a game of species fighting for survival. The fittest shall survive; humans are the fittest, and we have won this hard game; why should we corrupt our victory with such worthless claims, so worthless that it allows humans to be discarded via the process of the game? 3.23 (Of Religious Justifications for Homophobia) It would be almost impossible to dismiss the religious justifications for homophobia. For religion and mankind has been intercorrelated with each other; the origins of religions, when explained, seems to be enough justifications for most. Religion was created as a by-product of other psychological apparatuses which man has gained via the process of natural selection. Since the acquiring of this is natural, then it would be logical to say that religious justifications for homophobia are natural, for the development of religion is a natural development. 3.24 (On the Corruption of the Youth) The opponent describes (please read comments) the corruption of the youth via homosexuality, and how such assertions are false. However, it would be necessary to address the growing freedom of the “ego” in the world today; by “ego” I mean sexual freedom(s) in media and the like. Firstly, this should be tracked to the ultraliberal feminist movement, whose indecent exposure still goes on today; advocating for such things like birth control, LGBTQ rights, and sexual freedom, they have created a sexually oriented youth 3.25 (On Molestation) Accordingly, it would be incorrect to label all homosexuals as child molesters; yet from their liberal attitude, it would be. However, this assertion does not go unsupported by the many empirical “evidences” that we have. The number of homosexual sex offenders over-represents the number of homosexuals in the population. In a study of 4,000 male sex offenders, 1/3 of them molested boys whilst 2/3 molested girls. In comparison with the 5-10% of homosexuals in the population, this over-representation is often shocking to some. This assertion would often lead to the assertion that many homosexuals, albeit not all, are quite likely to molest children. [9][10] Note: This is not hasty generalization, but merely a justification for homophobia. These beliefs may not characterize the opposition.3.26 Through all these propositions, one question still remain quite unanswered; is homophobia ever justified? Is homophobia inherently rational? It is a rule physics that every action necessarily produces a reaction. Perhaps this might also be a rule of societal actions; that every reaction against every action is necessarily, and henceforth, whatever is natural is just, for whatever is unjust can be prevented from taking its manifestations in the first instances. Corollary: Homophobia can only be just because of these reasons. ∴Homophobia, because of reasons of religion, of threats against youth physically and psychologically, of teleology of intercourse, is just.Citations: [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...;[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...