Homophobia is a natural disease avoidance behavior. Therefore, homophobia is good for humans

"conflate the use of scientific evidence to support a point with the bare results of a scientific study. No scientific study could ever prove that anything is "good"" First of all, I would like to remind the readers that homophobia is rooted in disgust and disgust is a disease a disease behavior in which means homophobia has to be a disease avoidance behavior since gays commonly have much higher rates of stds and infections. Knobes et al (2009) gay men elicit disgust 9092857422 4242403024 7573765577 Otangi , Bunji et al (2001) homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear Hanah Chapman et al (2010) moral disgust rooted in survival instinct our sense of right and wrong has roots in an evolutionary survival instinct Valerie Curtis et al (2009) Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior There's an article about a study on disgust entitled "Why the feeling of disgust is good for us' Here are more sources Google the following "UK study shows massive surge in deadly STDs among gay men" "Gay sex drives up China's HIV/AIDS infections" "Gay HIV epidemic is increasing in all nations" There's a study that clearly states "disgust is good" Here's a quote. "The feelings of disgust help us to avoid, or at the very least recognize, the things that make us feel this way - and for a very good reason, psychologists say. "When it comes to infectious diseases, disgust has evolved to help us steer clear of sick people, dirty water, vomit, body fluids and all the other stuff that makes us react "Yuck." In a paper published in Philosophical Transactions for the Royal Society B, Dr Val Curtis, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, argues that avoidance behavior is essential to prevent the spread of all the major current and recent infectious diseases which present a threat to humans" My opponent is insinuating that an avoidance behavior that decreases the risk of deadly diseases is somehow not good. That goes against the definition of 'good' According through Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of ' good' is as follows. "b (1) :suitable, fit (2) :free from injury or disease (3) :not depreciated (4) :commercially sound (5) :that can be relied on" "Pro's only legitimate example is a woman not having sex with a bisexual man because he may have STDs, however you can cross-apply my point about the STD rate differential resulting from more modern phenomena, such as contraception" My opponent's complaint about one example is irrelevant and he falsely assumes that I only have one example. Since homophobes are disgusted by gays, homophobes in general are less likely to experience homosexual behavior in which decreases STD risks. There will always be a segment of the population who won't use contraceptions so my opponent's assertion about contraception is irrelevant. " Also, homosexual individuals may very well engage in less conservative sexual behavior because institutions which are conservative by nature repudiate homosexuality. Homosexuals, then, would be less likely to affiliate with, say, religious institutions, which would bar casual sex" This is false. According to a report from aidsmeds, the gay HIV epidemic is increasing in all nations. This means political views are irrelevant because the same issue applies to the most liberal countries. Google this "The Gay HIV Epidemic Is Increasing in All Nations" "Once again, we are weighing Pro's bizarre scenario in which a man with an STD contracted from sex with another man attempts to have sex with a woman (to be impactful today, remember that this sex would have to be performed without any sort of protection) and homophobia comes to save the day" A study proves that my opponent is wrong. Google this 'New stats from the New York Department of Health and Hygiene and the Centers for Disease Control show that, in New York City, the majority of 647 women who tested HIV-positive in 2012 acquired the virus through unprotected sex with bisexual men' Since homophobia is rooted in disgust, homophobia women and men won't have sex with gay/bi men in which decrease the risk of contracting deadly stds. My argument is, homophobia is good because it is a disease avoidance behavior. If gays are harmed during the disease avoidance defense process, it does not change the fact that homophobia is good because it is a natural disease avoidance behavior. " The crux of my argument was that gay people are people, and homophobia leads to harms directed towards gay people. Therefore, homophobia harms people. Very simple, difficult to dispute. Whether or not they "bring it upon themselves", and whether or not we're disgusted by behavior or individuals, we can still recognize that individuals are harmed as a result of homophobia." Closet gays don't suffer because people don't even know they're gay" Again, Homophobia does more good. Millions of homophobes are naturally equipped with a defense system that decreases the risk of deadly stds. "Less than 3,000 gays are attacked each year in America compared to millions homophobes who benefit from homophobia. "There's a good chance that the people who attack gays have other issues that contributed to their behavior" Openly gays chose to publicly embrace a high health risk behavior instead of keeping their private life private. Therefore, they suffer the consequences. Again, it's their fault for publicly embracing a high health risk behavior. Again, it could be argued that it's morally wrong for nation to tolerate people to publicly embrace high health risk behaviors. "But the harms such as bullying, persecution, and hate crimes still exist, as well as denial of basic rights in many countries" Again, Homophobia does more good. Millions of homophobes are naturally equipped with a defense system that decreases the risk of deadly stds. "Less than 3,000 gays are attacked each year in America compared to millions homophobes who benefit from homophobia. "There's a good chance that the people who attack gays have other issues that contributed to their behavior" Again, my opponent assumes that there shouldn't be any consequences for publicly embracing a high health risk behavior. If a kid went to school and told everyone he's having sex with dogs and cats, he should expect negative consequences for publicly embracing a high health risk behavior. ""Behavior is inextricably linked with the person, and in the moment when one is disgusted by behavior, you're usually disgusted by the person as well" Gays are the ones who publicly expose their sexual orientation in which causes people to be disgusted by them. In most cases, we don't know they are gay unless they let it be known. Therefore, the actions of gays trigger a natural defense system against them. That's like walking towards a bear's Cubs and expecting the bear to not have a defense system. Again, homophobia is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. if someone exposes that they're having sex with their mother or their dog, they should expect the same type of reaction . " " In conclusion, my opponent attempts to downplay a disease avoidance behavior even though it clearly serves as a defense system against deadly diseases and infections. My opponent chose to fish for sorrow and appeal to emotions to persuade the voters. "Notice his argument is based on emotions, not logic. "The truth is, homophobia does more good than bad. Even the bad part of homophobia is triggered by gays openly embracing a high health risk behavior. Also, America's idea of "marriage equality" is a mass delusion. "True marriage equality is Legalizing all types of marriages including incestuous marriage and polygamy. " We must enter the gay world to find out why Homophobia is necessary Google "How to seduce a straight guy in 8 easy steps" Real number 7. "The blogger clearly conveys that homophobia ruins their chances of sexually seducing "straight guys. Hundreds of gay men agreed" Google" 'Straight crush"