Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Before I respond, I'd like to say that I respect the opponent for not utilizing his homophobia in this debate. Specifically, he had the opportunity to use the "F word" and decided not to. I thank him for that. However, in order to make a point, I might have to use some obscene words myself. I intend to illicit an emotional response from my opponent toward the end of this round. I'll refute my opponent's arguments in the order given. Homophobia as a negative social stigmaI will admit that my opponent is right, to some extent. A homophobic person does not always face a negative social stigma due to their beliefs, especially when they surround themselves with other like minded people. However, my opponent cannot deny that there exist people in this world who do not respect homophobes. He also cannot deny that sometimes one must unavoidably form relationships with such people. Considering these two facts, it is necessarily a fact that a homophobe will have relationship(s) damaged due to their homophobia. Even if it is not a common ordeal, like it might not be for my opponent, who surrounds himself with very like minded people, in our very connected world relationships in which homophobia hurts the relationship cannot be avoided. Additionally, on this point, my opponent concludes that 'homophobia . .. prevents unwanted crushes from gay, unwanted sexual advances from gays . .. '. However, I have made arguments showing that these advances have little to do with friendship, which my opponent may or may not cover later. If not, these advantages cannot go to him. Homophobia in the workplaceMy opponent attempts to deflect my legal argument by claiming that he has 'a legal right to homophobia'. While this is true, at a base level, many corporations consider sexual orientation to be a legal protection. There are no laws that consider homophobia to be a protected status. My opponent attempts to argue that his rights to discriminate against gays are equivalent to the protected status of gays -- but in the workplace this simply isn't the case. It is just as if my opponent was arguing a right to racism in the workplace. Blacks have legal protections, racists do not. Quiet HomophobiaMy opponent briefly argues that in the workplace a homophobe can simply remain silent regarding their beliefs. While this is true, this is not the type of homophobia my opponent seems to be arguing for everywhere else in his piece. He repeatedly talks about using homophobia as a tool to gain certain advantages. Clearly if he is quiet about his homophobia in the work place, no advantages can be had and he isn't practicing homophobia in the manner that he is generally arguing for in his speech. Also, a brief note. I'm sure the audience is aware that you are an atheist. A quick look at my profile will show I am also an atheist. However, that is a completely irrelevant point in this debate and there's really no reason to keep bringing it up. Lastly on this point, the opponent says I am utilizing the straw man fallacy, that homophobia is not the same as discrimination. He says that refusing to forge relationships with gays is entirely legal. However, he seems completely unaware of how companies function. It is necessary for staff to get along with one another in order to maximize profits. If my opponent were to get a job at some place and his boss were to tell him he had to work on a project with a gay guy, he is in quite a predicament. Either a) He can complain about this to the boss, citing his homophobia. The boss would quickly determine that this is discrimination and fire him. b) He can keep quiet, in which case he is practicing a type of homophobia that yields no advantages. In this scenario, he'd still be working closely with a gay and would still be open to all of the 'advances' that go with that. Homophobia Damaging RelationshipsMy opponent essentially blows this argument off, stating that "[the relationship loss] could be vice-versa, so [my] claim means nothing". He repeatedly states that this is a subjective claim on my end. For now, I'll leave this argument alone, in lieu of more objective arguments. Straight Crushes and Their OccurrencesMy opponent cites one "Ellen Friedrich" multiple times, but does not source her anywhere. After some research, I found that she is indeed a "gay teen expert", on about. com. She has a BS in women's studies and an MA in human sexuality. It's worth noting that a woman whose only science degree is in women's studies is hardly an expert on this topic. This is furthered by the fact that her choice method of disseminating information is on a blog linked to about. com. Her claim that 'straight crushes are most common [in gay/straight relationships] holds no water when investigated more closely. As I stated previously, this is a pure numbers game. The amount of gay people who are not friends with you far outweighs the number that are (for any given person). Due to this huge numerical difference, even if a gay friend is twice as likely to hit on you as a gay stranger, significantly more strangers will hit on you than gay friends. Again, this is due to the fact that the "average person" might have around 5 gay friends, while there are 30 million other gay men who are not their friend This makes my opponent's claim of advantages here only marginally advantageous, bordering on ineffective. A little after this point, the opponent deflects my "stigma against coming on to straight friends" argument by again invoking Ms. Ellen. she says that "in many cases closeted gays befriend heterosexuals in order to get close to them to be honest about their crush". Again, these are just unsubstantiated claims made by an unqualified woman. Even if the are true, it clearly refers to "closeted men", who homophobes cannot avoid, since their sexuality is a secret. He states that gays are 'less likely to come out to homophobes', but does not support this with any evidence. I can speak, from my first hand experience as a gay man watching other gay's relationships with straights develop over time, that homophobia does nothing to stop a gay from crushing on them. In fact, in many cases, the gay is particularly drawn to them by a 'savior complex', with the desire to change their minds about homosexuals and show that they aren't the disgusting people homophobes make them out to be. A Final ArgumentI'll be introducing a refined version of my previous "damages relationships" argument, specifically dealing with family. It is nearly always that case that a gay child has heterosexual parents. If parents were to practice homophobia, it would invariably damage the relationship with the child. Additionally, a homophobe would likely face complications from other family members who support the 'gay in the family'. Unlike friends, one cannot so easily throw away and avoid family. Considering that nearly all gays have straight family members, this issue is systemic and is a significant disadvantage to homophobiaConclusionMy opponent did an excellent job pointing out the subjective nature of many of my arguments. However, the one argument that he did not adequately deflect was the argument regarding the law against discrimination, specifically in business. I have shown that homophobia damages familial relations. I have also demonstrated that homophobia only marginally decreases the chances of being hit on by gays and that his 'friend filtering system' does little to stop this. Considering that the negative consequence of discrimination in the work place and in the family outweighs the marginal (very small) reduction in being hit on by gays, it is clear that it is not net beneficial for heterosexuals to be homophobic. Additionally, I remind the opponent that he has the Burden of Proof. He should use this next round to introduce any evidence solidifying his position. I look forward to the final round.