The right to chant at soccer matches should be protected from heterophobic extremists

Much thanks to my opponent for posting this debate. Since there are only two rounds, I will jump right into my counterargument. To begin, I would like to provide a few clarifying definitions for some of the vocabulary used within my opponent's resolution. Right: a claim recognized and delimited by law for the purpose of securing it; An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or natureProtected: A legal or other formal measure intended to preserve civil liberties and rights. Hetrophobia: The non-existent supposed "fear and mistrust" of heterosexual people by LGBT people. It is a neologism and snarl word designed to delegitimize the gay rights movement, its campaign for equal treatment, and aim to end to anti-gay bigotry. **This is the closest to a definition that I could find for Heterophobia. However, a more simple and objective definition may be a parallel to the definition of homophobia. By substituting "homosexuality" with "heterosexuality", Heterophobia would therefore be hypothetically defined as: An extreme and irrational aversion to [heterosexuality] and [heterosexual] people.Extremist: a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radicalDisability: a physical or mental condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.If my opponent disagrees with the definitions provided, I encourage him to indicate so in the final round. My opponent makes the claim that individuals have the right to essentially voice offensive comments to alleged homosexual soccer players. While it is true that citizens have legally protected rights to express their opinions and voice, citizens are not protected from organizations such as Football Association that may implement specific regulations for such behavior. The right to freely speak only protects a citizen from legal or governmental intervention. It does not protect citizens from facing consequences for their actions--consequences that the Football Association has every right to enforce as an autonomous organization.My opponent also asserts that these supposed rights are being infringed upon by "heterophobic extermists". The first definition for Heterophobia provided already identifies the fallacy of this statement. However, I believe this part of the resolution still warrants focus as it appears my opponent is suggesting that the rights of heterosexuals are being infringed upon. The simple response to this claim is that opposition to homophobic comments is not equal to opposition to heterosexuals. Stonewall's position is not based on aversion to or intolerance for heterosexual individuals. It is based on aversion to intolerant comments made by anyone. My opponent's claim is also faulty as it suggests that all heterosexuals are innately homophobic or will make homophobic comments. Such generalizations are certainly unfair to the many heterosexual people who don't make homophobic comments. With that in mind, it is a bit uncertain as to how my opponent concludes that opposition to offensive comments is in any way "extremist". Imploring for a civil environment in which all players are treated with respect and are not at risk for verbal abuse is not immoderate or radical. What is uncompromising is the fact that those who favor homophobic comments are asking for others to tolerate their intolerance. Most importantly, the context of which this behavior is arising is not even remotely appropriate. Of course fans of the game will become riled and enthusastic about the sport, but it is irrational to resort to criticizing something as irrelevant as the sexuality of the players. My opponent then makes the claim that these comments are "humorous" and light-hearted, and at this point he no longer provides any arguments, but a list of examples of the "good-natured" comments directed at soccer players. The simple response would be that subjective humor is not grounds for justifying verbal abuse. Anyone could make the argument that their inappropriate behavior is funny. What they consider funny however does not take away from the fact that other individuals involved are being negatively affected and in some ways, harmed by what is being said. Again, going back to this idea of what is appropriate depending on the context, Soccer is an open sport in which the general public gathers. Unlike in a private setting in which homophobia may be encouraged and enjoyed, in the general public, a number of people become at risk at taking offense to what is said. One is free to say whatever disparaging word he or she likes in their own home, but in a public setting, they are susceptible to being limited if the organization in charge deems so.Thus, Stonewall's campaign is not unlawful nor is it extremist. The decision of what happens to homophobic fans is ultimately based on the Football Association, and whether for or against the campaign, their decision will remain legally correct. Sources:1. http://www.stonewall.org.uk...;2. http://www.examiner.com...;3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...4. http://rationalwiki.org...