args

Resolved: Private corporations supportive of gay rights should turn neutral on the position instead.

I thank my opponent in this acceptance of this resolution, and I stand on the CON in this argument: Private institutions supportive of gay rights should not change to a neutral position on the matter. I will provide the following parameters for the debate, beginning with the definitions of the resolution: Gay rights (n.): Rights that specifically deal with the issues of homosexuals, including gay employment, gays in the military, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. [This is used as a general term] With the essential definition in this debate case established, I move on toward the observation(s) for this round. Observation 1: Gay rights are a subset of human rights because they deal with equalizing respect and status to homosexuals as human beings and citizens in the community. Therefore, the context of gay rights should be looked at through the lens of human rights in this scenario. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the concern for gay rights through the context of human rights: "Concern for the equal rights of disadvantaged groups is a longstanding concern of the human rights movement. Human rights documents emphasize that all people, including women and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, have the same basic rights and should be able to enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures prominently in the Universal Declaration and subsequent treaties... Minority groups are often targets of violence. Human rights norms call upon governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. It is also done by the right against genocide which protects groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II." Observation 2: The BOP is shared between the two opponents with consideration that both sides make a positive statement with regard to their position. The burden most particularly on the PRO is to prove that there is sufficient reason for private corporations to turn to such a position away from the support of gay rights. I move on toward my contentions: Contention 1: Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society. In order to maintain and preserve equality and dignity for all members of the community, gay rights should be accepted in order to equalize the status of homosexuals to those of fellow human beings of the counterpart sexual orientation. Sub-point 1a: Human rights are important. The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) explains the importance of human rights as well as reasons why they must be upheld by the society: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations" Sub-point 1b: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens. The systematic discrimination of gays via denial to recognize their rights designates gay people as second-class citizens of inferior status. Because of this treatment, they fit the qualifications of what is characterized as the second-class citizen: A person considered inferior in status or rights in comparison with some others (The American Heritage Dictionary) a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society (Collins English Dictionary) Sub-point 1c: Denial of gay rights causes negative social effects. The CDC speaks on the effects of the denial of gay rights and equal recognition: " Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can: Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were: 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex Contention 2: Private corporations can be influential in promoting gay rights. Private corporations have been considered a great asset in the scope of promoting gay rights in the society, especially when it comes to the matters of monetary concerns. Microsoft Windows, for instance, had donated $100,000 in order to support Referendum 71 in Washington, and additional dollars came in from Chairman Bill Gates and chief executive Steven A. Ballmer. Apple had donated the same amount of money against Proposition 8 in 2008 in California. Even if, however, organizations aren't supporting monetarily, they still provide great services toward the LGBT community through their support and actions. Oreo and Kraft Foods have posted propaganda in support of gay rights and pride, for example. http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.queeried.com... "Stigma and Discrimination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 June 2012. <" target="blank">http://www.cdc.gov......