Homophobia is Justified

I will now defend my case. I already discussed the definition, so I will start with (2). Pro reasserts that fear is natural, and therefore not irrational. "Irrational" is defined as "not based on reason, good judgment, or clear thinking. " [1] Therefore, if the fear is not based in logic (for example, having a fear of all spiders is not logical) it is irrational. Just because some emotion is felt naturally does not mean that the emotion is a rational one to feel--we often distinguish instinct and naturalness from rationality (someone with a mental illness such as schizophrenia is not rational, despite their condition being a natural one), and this is a case where such a distinction is vital. Regarding the prefrontal cortex, this area of the brain does not simply do reasoning, it also controls personality, manages social skills, and more. [2] Just because it is activated when someone feels hate does not mean that hate is rational. That would be like saying that because I go into a Macy's I want to buy clothes--that's fallacious reasoning because Macy's has many departments, and I could want to shop and any one of them, and not necessarily clothes. Similarly, just because the prefrontal cortex is involved in reasoning does not mean reasoning, esp. conscious reasoning, is involved in hate. It could be that one of the cortex's other departments, like personality management, is responsible for hate. Moreover, Pro has only show that hate stimulates the cortex; he has not show that the cortex necessarily makes that hate rational. So, clearly, Pro has failed to connect that natural to the rational. Since irrational concerns are not good reasons to do something, Pro has failed to show that natural homophobia is justified inasmuch as it could be grounded in a good reason. Naturalness also clearly does not relate to justness either. In round three (1.1), Pro mistakenly conflates just with justified, and mistakenly assumes that I am conflating just with morality. Justified and just cannot be the same, as one defines the other. However, just is a values judgment--if something is just, we think of it as ethical and the right thing to do. My point, the is/ought fallacy, is that values-based claims cannot be derived from fact based-claims in this way. For instance, it is neither ethical nor unethical, just nor unjust, that I am white. I just am white. Whiteness is a physical state and has no moral value whatsoever. Consider the absurdity of the following claim: a vase is just because it is a vase. Also consider this claim: a white man is just because he is white. Both of these claims are preposterous, so why is it any less preposterous for Pro to claim: a homophobe is just because he is a homophobe. It is both a non-sequitur and circular logic. Pro misunderstand my argument here--an object's physical traits (color, height, etc. ) don't have any bearing on whether something is or is not just. A knife is not unjust because it is a knife. Actions, choices--those are things that have moral value. So, naturalness doesn't make something just or right either. Therefore, Pro cannot use naturalness to prove whether homophobia is justified. (3) It is only reasonable or rational is there is a logical reason to perceive homosexuals as a threat. As yet, there is no logical reason to conclude that they are a threat. Pro then suggests that all actions are either justified or unjustified. This dichotomy certainly is not the case, and Pro gives us no reason to believe it is. Justified is a statement of permissibility--it suggests that something was okay to do. Unjustified is a statement of impermissibility--it suggest that something was not okay to do. But there are things that are neither okay nor not okay, but that just are. A tsunami is neither justified nor unjustified because it is not an ethical or rational phenomenon. Pro must show that something is just, right, or sensible. A tsunami is none of these things, yet it is not the converse of these things either, implying that there are some things that are neither justified nor unjustified. In fact, the likelihood of contracting HIV or an STD "during an act of unprotected anal intercourse is estimated to be 1.4 percent. " [3] The key word there is unprotected. That number is fairly low to begin with, and with effective protection, it's apt to be much lower. Only about 5% of the gay population has STDs, and, with such a small number of people infected, is not a rational reason to be a homophobe. That's like the girl fearing all spiders because somewhere out in the universe there are venomous spiders. As for Pro's drug study, it includes drugs like marijuana, which are not universally illegal and which are not viewed by many to be harmful. Since we don't actually know how many people in this study, which was limited just to the UK (and it may be different in LGBTQ communities outside the UK), were addicted to which drugs, it is disingenuous to make the claim that homosexuals are 7x more likely to be addicted to illegal drugs. And, since drugs like nicotine weren't counted in the study, it is also wrong to claim that homosexuals are 7x more likely to be addicted to drugs. Also, why should the fact that gay sex is not reproductive inspire fear--it harms not one. It may be disliked, but it's not a reason to fear. Moreover, why must sex be reproductive; there are many reasons to have sex, including intimacy. Finally, heterosexuals engage in non-reproductive sex all the time, so if someone fears others because they don't engage in reproductive sex, he will have to fear heterosexuals too. Thus, it would cease to be homophobia, because it would no longer be confined to LGBTQ people. Pro basically claims that because religion is natural, it is logical to use it to fear homosexuals. I already addressed the issues with naturalness, and Pro totally drops the passages of the Bible could be being misinterpreted and that the Bible itself is outmoded in many aspects--it tells us to make animal sacrifices, but we don't. We selectively choose those portions of the Bible we want to obey; if that is the case, then the Bible is not a credible source, but rather is a guise through which we can hide our irrational fears in religiosity. Pro then talks about sex in the media as corrupting the youth. If this were a reason to fear something, then we should fear the ultra feminists for it as well--in which case we're not fearing gays because they are gay (homophobia) but because of some other reason. Therefore, because we're fearing heterosexuals and gays for "corruptingg the youth" we're not being homophobic, our phobia is instead of promiscuity. Pro presents a study of male sex offenders. This is just 1 study, my source is drawing from many studies to reach it's conclusion. Furthermore, "Adoption expert, Carrie Craft cites the Child Welfare Information Gateway (previously National Adoption Information Clearinghouse) as stating, "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual. " The study also found that of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. The American Psychological Association agrees, "Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children. "" [4] (4) Sources 1 - www. merriam-webster. com 2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3 - . http://std.about.com... 4 - . http://gaylife.about.com... (5) Conclusion Homophobia is not rational, and thus is not justified by a good reason; it is not just or right; and it is not sensible, a perquisite for being reasonable. Ultimately, just because you can naturally be homophobic, just because you have a right to think what you want, does not mean your thoughts are right, just, or rational. Thus, homophobia cannot be justified.