Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Final round, here we go. I'll be going along in the order my opponent made his last argument, though instead of quoting everything he said, I'll label it with something clear and concise.The Existence of Homophobe-phobes and Their Relationship With HomophobesMy opponent is missing most of the point of my argument. We are currently weighing the opponent's benefits (not getting hit on, avoiding unwanted advances). I stated that if he is to actively practice homosexuality in the work place, it would have dire negative consequences. He has responded by saying that he really only intends to be actively homophobic in his personal life, "outside of school or work." He forgets that most of the relationships we form are in situations like work and school, while we don't form nearly as many in our private time. If he is actively homosexual in such situations, the negative consequences outweigh the benefits. If he is not actively homosexual in such situations, then he will still be open to unwanted advances, as the majority of his relationships will be formed in these situations. Either way, it's a net loss. Homophobia as an Avoidance BehaviorMy previous argument pretty much covers this. If you are not practicing that avoidance behavior in the office/classroom, then it is not effective. It is in these places that the majority of relationships are formed. What the opponent is left with is a marginal benefit -- one that only comes into play in a select few situations. Homophobia in the Work PlaceMy opponent tries to make a semantic argument, claiming that an "aversion to" or a "disgust" of homosexuals is not discrimination, when in fact the definition of discrimination is "a prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things". If a homophobe acts on this disgust or diversion, he is discriminating and is violating the law. The fact that he believes homophobia isn't discrimination does not affect whether it actually is discrimination. Again, my argument assumes he is practicing discrimination in the work place. If he is not, see my previous argument. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that you can be fired for what you do in your spare time [http://www.workplacefairness.org...]. So someone who is actively homophobic in their spare time can legally be fired for their activities. This is a major disadvantage of being homophobic and will come into play once we weigh the advantages and the disadvantages. Who Hits On You More? Strangers or FriendsMy opponent again invokes Ms. Ellen, who I have shown has little credibility. He states that she has over 800 gays on her site that have developed a crush on a straight friend. This is not surprising, as her site is specifically aimed at gay teenagers. It is not surprising that a gay teenager who crushed on a straight friend wound up on a site that discusses and gives advice on precisely that issue. This is a numbers argument. Let me give you an example. Let's assume the average gay-friendly person has 5 gay friends. Let's also assume that they live in a reasonably sized city (2 million) and that 10% of the men there are gay. That's 100,000 gay men. Now let's assume, through day-to-day activities, that you encounter about 500 gay men in a year. If a gay friend is 10 times more likely to hit on you than a gay stranger, you can still expect that you will be hit on 10 strangers per every 1 time you get hit on by a friend. Even if we eliminate the gay friend variable, the likelihood of getting hit on doesn't dramatically decrease. This is what I meant when I said that homophobia is only marginally advantageous in this area -- because there is only a marginal reduction in the number of times you get hit on my a member of the same sex. As for the argument about dealing with unwanted advances, my opponent claims that the homophobe is in a superior position because he can say "F off". My opponent seems to be implying that one has to move mountains in order to tell another person they aren't interested, when in reality it goes something like this: "That's very nice of you, but I'm not gay." The 'benefit' of having to use less syllables to express disinterest is hardly a benefit at all. Gays in the FamilyMy opponent claims I used the Straw Man fallacy (something he claims a lot and doesn't seem to understand) when talking about the gays in the family issue. I'm not arguing that it applies to his advantages, rather I'm arguing that it is a large disadvantage. When homophobia causes damage to relationships, that is a negative. Unlike with friends, gay family members cannot be so easily pushed away and, even if they are, there is likely to be pushback from other members of the family. The fact that a child wouldn't be attracted to his parents doesn't take away from the fact that a homophobic father's actions would invariably cause damage to the family. -------Before I begin my weighing process, I'd like to point out one issue I see in my opponent's conclusion. He states that he has proven that gays "commonly" develop crushes on straight friends, but has presented no evidence of this. In fact, you'll notice he hasn't presented any links to any evidence whatsoever. He casually brings up things that Ms. Ellen supposedly said, but does not prove this in an form. Let's Weigh ThingsThis is the part where we weigh the advantages and disadvantages of being homophobic, in order to determine whether it is net beneficial. Advantages:1. Marginally reduces chances of being hit on by gays. 2. Marginally reduces chancess of being crushed on by a gay. Disadvantages:1. Hurts familial relations. 2. Can cause issues in the work place. I've only presented my two biggest disadvantages, so that there is a one-to-one comparison of Ads to Disads. Let's run through the advantages. His first is that he can slightly reduce the chances of being hit on by gays. I have proven this is indeed only marginal. But more to the point, this isn't much of an advantage at all. Say the opponent does get hit on by a gay guy. The absolute worst thing this can be considered is 'mildly inconvenient'. It in no way physically, psychologically or economically affects the person being hit on. Additionally, it takes about 10 seconds of time to end the ecounter. The opponent's second advantage is much the same. The 'advantage' isn't much of an advantage at all. As for the disadvantages, they are quite significant. The first relates to the family, one of the most important social structures in everyone's lives. When there are issues here, they often cause systemic issues. Not only does one have to deal with the financial ramifications that a pissed off family can levy, but they have to deal with the emotional fallout. The second disadvantage is also important. It is impossible to get ahead, or even survive long, in this world without a stable job capable of generating income. Homophobia dramatically increases the risk of complications arising in the work place that directly lead to getting fired because of discrimination. 30 years ago, this might not have been an issue, but in today's world discrimination of protected classes is punished with impunity. ConclusionIt is clear. The disadvantages of being homophobic far outweight the advantages, if you can even call them that. An unstable family life and job are not worth the avoiding a mild inconvenience. What is not net-beneficial to a person is not beneficial.I have made my case. It is clear -- Homophobia is not beneficial to many heterosexuals.