Homophobia is Justified

Thanks to KC for this debate. As you can imagine, this is an issue that I take very seriously, and am eager to have a thorough and engaging discussion on that matter. I will now present my case.The question posed by the resolution is "Homophobia is Justified." As Pro is making the claim, the burden of proof rests solely on him to defend it. If he has failed to show that homophobia is justified, the resolution cannot be affirmed, and thus we must default to Con. The issue of whether something is "justified" implies, as per the definition (see R1), that we have a good reason for doing something. A good reason is not merely any reason, because not all reasons are good. This seems rather redundant, but I believe it will become more important as the debate progresses. Let's consider the following example to elucidate my point. A child reads about venomous Australian tarantulas, and suddenly begins to fear all spiders. The child does have a reason for fearing spiders--the child has read about the deadly effects of the bite of a certain kind of spider. Unfortunately, this is not a good reason to fear all spiders, since the vast majority of the arachnids are non-venomous.We could draw this example out even further, to continue to demonstrate my point. Let's assume that a respected arachnologist has told the child that no venomous spiders inhabit the region where the child lives. Surely, a rational agent would no longer fear the spiders that they encounter around their house because they have good reason to believe that such spiders are harmless. Yet, humans are not just rational, but we are also emotional. Despite this new insight, therefore, the child continues to display a strong fear of all spiders.The child has arachnophobia. The term "phobia" itself implies irrationality, and the irrational nature of something is what makes it unjustified. The child's fear of spiders isn't justified because there is no rational reason to fear them in her situation. This logic is intuitively evident in the example I cite, and it is semantically implied by the very term "justified." And, an irrational actions is not a justified action; I even said as much when I pointed out in R1 that it was, in essence, Pro's job to show homophobia to be rational. We can therefore conclude that if homophobia is irrational, it is unjustified, meriting a Con ballot.I am now going to make my core claim: the only rational reason to fear something is that you believe it will cause harm to you (directly or indirectly). It is not rational to fear all spiders, because not all spiders are going to cause harm to you. It is logical to fear a boomslang or a hippo, because the former is incredibly venomous and the latter is one of the most dangerous animals (by body count) in Africa. The only logical way, then, to approach the topic is to ask whether homosexuals or members of the LGBTQ community are harmful. If the answer is yes, then homophobia is justified. If the answer is no, then homophobia is not justified.One of the most common reasons that homophobes cite for their fear of homosexuals is the prevalence of STDs in the gay community. "The global HIV and AIDS epidemic has always been closely linked with attitudes towards gay men; a group that is particularly affected by HIV and AIDS." [1] In fact, while the LGBTQ community does have higher rates of HIV than the straight community, the reason for this discrepancy is not because homosexual sex cannot be practiced safely, but because the culture of safe sex in that community was less prevalent when the HIV epidemic first broke out than it is now. [2] In fact, "homophobia continues to be a major barrier to ending the global HIV and AIDS epidemic. In many countries, stigma and discrimination prevent men who have sex with men from accessing vital HIV prevention, treatment and care services." [1] "Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs." [3] Perhaps even more startling, 19.3% of all hate crimes are motivated by homophobia. [3] So, if the harms caused by HIV/AIDS are reasons to fear something, we should fear homophobes not homosexuals because the former are the ones obstructing the progress to a safer community.Religion and "machismo" cultural trends are also reasons for homophobic feelings. [1] Neither of these reasons are truly rational reasons to fear gay people. The Bible supports many things now dismissed by modern society as wrong or irrational, such as slavery, animal sacrifice, and patriarchal power structures. Why should a book that contains such errors or outmoded material be used to justify homophobia, esp. since it's claims against homosexuals could be just as errant as its endorsements of slavery, chauvinism, etc. Frankly, this will be true of any religion, and calls into question the rationality of using any religious text, just barely asserted, to make the case for homophobia. And, as far as the Old Testament is concerned, we could be misinterpreting some of the anti-homosexual passages [3]. If such books and scrolls are open to interpretation, it is hard to justify using them in any absolute fashion to blanketly justify homophobia.Finally, the other claim used commonly to justify homophobia is the claim that there is a pernicious gay agenda out to corrupt children and society, and that homosexuals may even be more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. [4, 5] This is really a collection of claims, but I think they're often woven together by homophobia's more vociferous proponents, so it makes sense to talk about them together. We can dismiss the claim that gay individuals are somehow a threat to minors based on an analysis of the available, credible research: "reflecting the results of these and other studies, as well as clinical experience, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children...There is no factual basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults. " [4]Lastly, if there is a "gay agenda" it is merely a desire to be treated as equal members of society. It is no more pernicious or dangerous than the Civil Rights or Women's Suffrage movements, because, as already illustrated, gay people aren't dangerous. So, really, it's just ridiculous to assert this as some sort of threat.Ultimately, I would like to conclude with the following quote: "Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women." [4] Really, modern homophobia is simply a manifestation of an illogical fear of a minority group, and, like the Jews and the Blacks, like the Muslims and the Catholics--all of whom were or are being persecuted in the U.S.--the persecution of gay people is not rationally justifiable. It is fundamentally irrational, and based in emotion--hate and fear being the primary drivers. This emotional response doesn't meet the criteria of "justified," and so we need to reject today's resolution and vote Con. Thank you.1 - http://www.avert.org...2 - http://std.about.com...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...