The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
american5
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,891 times Debate No: 22951
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance.
american5

Con

Best luck to my opponent
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I stand on the PRO side arguing that Disney World in Orlando, FL should continue to have "gay days" in its park. The gay days in question are a celebration of homosexuals and diversity of sexuality taking place within the park. Other than this, I have no more definitions for the understanding of the debate at hand. I explain my single contention for this round:

Contention :
Gay days promote a guiding principle that betters the status of acceptance and tolerance in the community.
The entire point of the Gay Days at Disney World is to promote the image of tolerance for the homosexual community, which is what is needed in order to create a better condition for homosexuals even at the local level if not that Disney's figurehead is so large that the entire American community can be influenced by this movement. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explain, intolerance is greatly negative for the health of the gay community:

"
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
The very same report explains that social support is the key toward reducing the problems of homophobia in the country and hence reduce the problems that result from this.
"Stigma and Discrimination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov...;.
american5

Con

1. If people want their kids to be accepting to gays than that's up to the parents and some parents don't want their children to accept homosexuality as a ok thing my opponents first argument is trying to state homosexuality is ok which billions of people me included don't believe so and wouldn't want our children around it.

my opponent has used one very bios site for his evidence on why homosexuality is good for kids which I must say is sick no on to my point

2. Acceptance or non acceptance of homosexuality is a personal moral thing that a children's theme park should have nothing to do with homosexuality is an adult topic not something for Mickey Mouse and Goofy to explain to your kids.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Point 1: Well, for one thing, although I don't support this action whatsoever all in the sake of preventing children from understanding homosexuality in totality in order to attain a full understanding of it, to be honest, parents can go to another amusement park if they wish. I heard Universal Studios is pretty cool as well in the same region, and I'm not aware of any gay days that they have in support of the LGBT community. At the end of the day, Disney World is an independent corporation, and to some relative extent, they should be allowed to make its own decisions in what they support and not support, so if parents don't feel comfortable with exposing children to homosexuality, they can easily go to another park. The more important point, however, in the question for the warrant as to why homosexuality is wrong. My main concern in my argument is the acknowledgment that homosexuals should be respected as people, and gay days in Disney world helps emphasize at the very least an image of tolerance in their community that benefits their welfare. My main reason for the acceptance of homosexuality is because of the lack of reason not to considering that science has helped diminish pretty much most of the general ideas against homosexuality, and while religion provides its own reason for not accepting homosexuality, it has no warrant whatosever. To deny learning about something just because you have a personal proclivity toward the subject in question is pretty much just the very narrow-mindedness that causes problems in the community with regard to hate crimes and LGBT discrimination. Looking from the perspective of the child, at some level, children should be able to learn about the natural world and understand it, and it is immoral for parents to deny access to that learning simply because they have a moral inclination against it, if not at the very least impractical because the child should understand the world in order to be able to fucntion in it, which is what the parents are preventing from happening. Furthermore, my opponent seems to imply the idea that children should attain the ideals of their parents including their moral proclivities, but on this I ask the following: what if the parent were trying to teach the child ideals of Nazism or racism? Why is this any different from teaching a child that homosexuality is wrong? They both result in discrimination and negative effects to minorities, after all. If my opponent implies this, then it implies that teaching children this would be good as well.
Point 2: Furthermore, my opponent doesn't understand gay days. Disney is not teaching children anything. All it's doing is that it's having a day where gay people are invited to come celebrate differences in sexual orientation at the park, not that the park is teaching kids anything related to homosexuality.
american5

Con

1. But why should they have to also Disney is one of if not the biggest amusement park in the world plus Universal Studios is not so much turned to younger kids. Also Disney sends it's advertising at the youth advertising its park to young children if they want to make another park where they aim their advertising at homosexuals then they can do that. Even though they are an independent company they have to respect the wishes and morals of the customers and joy seekers coming to their park. Now for gays being an equal part of society many people don't believe they should and the law protect peoples rights to feel that way and its wrong for Disney to try and pressure people into supporting what they believe in the manner that aims at their children and as far as me being narrow minded I find it very ignorant of you to say that simply because I believe homosexuality is immoral does not make me narrow minded I have taken a good look at homosexuality and one reason I'm against it is because it doesn't add to society they can't reproduce which is not narrow minded at all and it is not just ignorant but very foolish of you to say my way of thinking and my beliefs do nothing but cause hate crimes that's like me saying if it weren't for weaklings like you we wouldn't have the curse of homosexuality but I would not say something like that for I have a decent amount of respect for my opponent even if they have a different view. Now to the topic of the children being allowed to see the natural world well the natural war, violence, starvation, genocide, and disease all of this children do not need to be exposed to and also many people believe homosexuality is not natural for reasons like they don't reproduce and it is not immoral for parents to shield their children from that until they are old enough to correctly understand it and make their own decision on the topic so its not immoral but it is illegal for someone like you to push this idea so ferociously on people. To add to that it is a parents job to raise their children with these ideals and to make them a productive member of society not the job of a company like Disney and if a parent decides that they want to teach their children about racism and Nazism then that's their choice and in the end it will be the child's choice to make up their mind on the topic without a major corporation with a ton of money pressing it on the impressionable minds of the youth. My opponent tries to state that these are the same as homosexuality but as I have stated it is the parents job to raise them and teach them these things not a theme parks if a parent decides they want to teach their children for pro or con on homosexuality it would be the same if Disney had black days or Jew days it would be completely inappropriate.

2. The gays are always welcome at Disney I have never heard of Disney not allowing someone into their park for being gay so why can't the gays just go there like everyone else do they want equality or dominance?

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Free-Market: One of the beautifies of a free-market system that the United States so heavily emphasizes on is the idea that consumers have the freedom to make the choice of what sort of business they want to go to in order to make their transactions. To be frank, if consumers do not feel that their morals are being projected by Disney World, they should either suck it up and deal with it or find another amusement park to go to. The laws do not require Disney World to respect moralities that outwardly demonize homosexuals, neither the ones of Florida nor of the United States federal government. If my opponent can find such a law that obligates this on Disney World, he could please bring it up in the next rebuttal. Otherwise, why should Disney World respect those moralities? This is something that my opponent keeps going on and on about, but he has no explanation as to why.
Equality: And as a response to my opponent's argument that some people feel that homosexuals should not be given rights, I want to point out that this argument is an implication for an ad Populum fallacy.
Narrow-mindness and the acceptance of homosexuals: Everything that my opponent has said in regard to narrow-mindness and ignorance shows to all of us that he doesn't have a minimal clue about what I'm talking about. I stated clear as day that the action of not allowing a child or anyone to try to understand homosexuality, come into contact with homosexuals, or otherwise generate their own opinions is narrow-minded. I did not in any way say that my opponent is narrow-minded, and when I said "you" in my previous statements, I was speaking to a general audience. Just for giggles, however, let's go through my opponent's statement. He's calling me ignorant because he thinks that I said that he was narrow-minded, but it looks like every single one of his arguments can be turned to prove otherwise. My opponent's beliefs DO cause hate crimes, suicides, and problems within the LGBT community, as my evidence (which my opponent just completely disregarded as biased) explained. It is the stigmatization of the homosexual community that leads people to believe that it's perfectly fine to hunt down a homosexual and beat him up or make a homosexual want to kill himself because he believes that he is sick and immoral, in addition to being persecuted. With my opponent calling homosexuality a curse and immoral, he's only pushing this problem in society. He doesn't explain why homosexuality is unnatural simply because they don't reproduce (even though they have the ability to reproduce and do on occasion have sexual intercourse or artificial insemination with members of the opposite sex in order to reproduce), and furthermore, why is reproducing adding to society. From what we hear in regards to overpopulation, the problem is too much reproduction, which leads to such the problem as well as the exhaustion of natural resources and contribution to the growing entropy of the planet. If anything, if homosexuals really don't reproduce at all, they act as a carrying capacity, an actual concept in the study of ecology. My opponent wants to talk about the naturality of homosexuality, but he doesn't have even the first clue about the study of nature as it seems, only enforcing my idea that there really is no reason as to why not to accept homosexuality. I'll forfeit the conduct point for saying this, but since I'm very secure in the idea that I've won the sources point, the spelling/grammar point, and most likely will win the argumentation point, I can spout a bit of truth: To speak about nature without knowing how it works is ignorance. To call me ignorant by saying that condemnation will lead to these problems even when supplied with evidence is ignorance. To be able to look at all the evidence pointing toward a different fact about homosexuality and still be able to say that it's wrong is narrow-minded.
Exposure to children: The main responsibility to children is to guide them in understanding the world and how it functions, and what my opponent is supporting is keeping them ignorant and stupid by not letting them know about war, violence, starvation, genocide, and disease, let alone letting them know about homosexuality. The earlier they know about it, the more knowledgeable they can become in the future. My opponent says that simply for the reason that some parents feel that it is immoral, this means that parents have the inherent right to shield them from it, which doesn't make sense if you were looking at it from the perspective of racism and Nazism. Either my opponent is saying that it's totally fine for parents to enforce ideals of racism on children or he doesn't understand what I was trying to imply. Is it okay for parents to tell their children that racism is okay? That Nazism is okay? I believe that it is the responsibility of not just the parents, but the community to raise children toward a proper direction, and for Disney to move children away from a mindset that causes hate crimes and suicides as I have explained is taking on wonderful role, although the main point is just to celebrate the diverse nature of sexuality in Disney World. It is not only parents, but an entire community that influences the growth of children, and as with that power comes a great responsibility.
Coming in like any other person: Gays are treated like every other person in the park. They are going in like everyone else. They're just outwardly showing to everyone there that they're proud of who they are.
american5

Con

Marketing: One of the beauties of marketing is that the consumer has a good say over what happens where they are or aren't consuming though the law does not force Disney to respect morals the consumer can by sending them bankrupt so on a marketing interest they will want to stop gay days.

Equality: If Disney is trying to spread equality than why did they refuse Christian groups entrance to the park as a church trying to enjoy the day.

Narrow-mindness: My opponent tries to state that I am narrow minded and all the other people who don't want their young children exposed to homosexuality are narrow minded but what is really narrow minded is this person fighting so hard to make everyone believe their point of view and refusing to accept the morals of the average person believing those morals should be tossed aside so they will believe what my opponent does I find this narrow minded and as far as gays killing themselves homosexuality has become widely accepted in America you can hardly say you disagree with homosexuality now without being labeled as ignorant and dumb for that if a homosexuals.

Coming like any other they aren't just coming in and leaving they are getting in for less money celebrating their sexuality coming out if a strait couple left the park going I'm so glad I'm strait its great to be strait people supporting the gays would be appalled.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Marketing: The simple fact that my opponent tells you himself that there is no law that makes Disney respect the morals of the consumer when he just said earlier that the company should respect the morals of the consumer and the law protects that aspect shows you he has no clue about what he's talking about. He says that the consumers can make the company go bankrupt, but then he talks about how homosexuality (apparently) has become mainstream and popular in society, implying that there's a reduced chance that this will actually occur. To be quite honest, I lost track of the course of this particular focus on the debate because first he makes statements about how Disney should respect morals, but now he says that Disney doesn't have to. I've proven that parents can just go to another park if they feel that their morals are not being represented, although my opponent even says himself that acceptance for homosexuals has been popular apparently. I definately win in this argument.
Equality: When did this happen? What were the conditions in which this happened? My opponent explains nothing on this. This example is mostly irrelevant.
Narrow-mindedness: Although I'm very staunch in my belief that homosexuality is perfectly normal and fine under the overarching concept of morality, I've allowed my opponent to make his ideas about homosexuality. I listened to every word and considered the arguments completely. I've looked at the overarching evidence, and I refuted using logic rather than just applying some kind of axiomatic mindset to everything (like how my opponent does). Expressing opinions is one thing. Expressing opinions with not even the slightest inclination toward listening to opposing arguments and forcing down a mindset on others without allowing even the slightest amount of individual thought (as my opponent supports) is another. Why did I refuse the morals of other people? I explained it with logical flow. I explained that these "morals" bring problems in the society, which is the complete opposite of what morals are supposed to do. I explained that there's no warrant to these morals in any way. My opponent just slaps on a "you're just wrong, and I'm just right" mindset to it. Who is the narrow-minded one here?
Widely Accepted Gays: This doesn't even remotely make sense. If gays were so heavily accepted today, they wouldn't have 4 times more probability to commit suicide. There wouldn't be only 8 states that have legalized gay marriage while all the others have either adopted constitutinal bans against gay marriage or just altogether have not accepted it in general. We wouldn't hear too many stories of victimization and bullying. However, we do. These problems still face our society.
Why vote for PRO: I may have lost the conduct vote by now, but all of the other votes are mine. My opponent has nothing but completely incoherent logic throughout the entirety of this debate coupled along with questionable rebuttals against my arguments, meaning I should have the argumentation vote. My opponent doesn't have even one resource, in contrast to me, meaning I should win the sources vote. My opponent can't type for three seconds without making a run-on, a comma splice, misspelling, etc. I should have the grammar vote. Pretty much every direction in the vote for this debate looks toward me essentially.
american5

Con

Marketing: Just because there is no law doesn't mean you should do it like trying to get high off nutmeg its not against the law but still shouldn't be done. My opponent here states that because homosexuality has grown in acceptance that Disney couldn't be hurt by allowing gay days again this is false for the simple fact that the gay community can't reproduce so the only way they can have children is to adopt which is long and difficult many times meaning most people with kids ( most people going to the park.) Would be heterosexuals who could be against homosexuality and send Disney's profits down the drain. Once again I state the law doesn't require it but they still should out of a show of equality if gays are allowed in for a reduced price it is unequal and that is considered segregation which is unconstitutional so arguably it would be against the law for them to have gay days. Now here I state that people shouldn't have to miss out on a amazing time at Disney one of the biggest most famous theme parks in the world and even if homosexuality is becoming more accepted there are still those who disagree and shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable.

Equality: This is just one of the many attacks against Christians Disney has made

http://www.christianpost.com...

Narrow mindedness: My opponent states I have used no evidence I beg to differ also I am not forcing anyone to believe anything simply defending my belief that homosexuality already has enough things like the gay pride parades and gayest city in the US contest and other media grabbing things they don't need to add a children's theme park to the list my opponent here started this debate saying Disney should give homosexuals these gay days simply because my opponent is pro homosexuality and wants to push this onto the minds of the youth Narrow minded?

Widely accepted: The Christians have the same problem same thing with people who have drunk or unsuccessful parents but everyone sees Christians as accepted and the reason gay marriage stays against the law in many states is because many people see marriage as a sacred thing between a man and wife but besides that most people are fine with gays being gay just because they don't want the spoiling one of the last sacred things on earth doesn't mean they are oppressed.

Vote Con: My opponent was probably made angry by someone who was anti homosexual and wanted to debate with someone to make them seem right they have added a lot of feelings into this that were probably just personal problems vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
I know, but I would have probably argued several other points.

I dunno, haven't looked too hard at the topic at hand.

Probably would have researched their reasons for removing them as well.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Sounds like a weak argument, OberHerr.
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
I would have made the argument that it doesn't encourage a atmosphere that everyone agrees with.
Posted by american5 4 years ago
american5
1dustpelt ouch not cool. And WriterSelbe even though they have the right to run it that way doesn't mean they should its a children's theme park and homosexuality is a adult topic not something that should be advertised to the youth.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Man, I should have accepted. Now this noob accepts.
Posted by WriterSelbe 4 years ago
WriterSelbe
@american5: Maybe so, but America provides people with the absolute right to freedom of speech and also the right to run their business as they choose. If they wish to have a gay day, then that is their right.
Posted by american5 4 years ago
american5
WriterSelbe America celebrate homosexuality as is with gay pride parades also remember Christmas and Easter are Christian holy days that were made to only be celebrated by Christians if America stopped celebrating them it would go back to the way it was made to be the right way not commercialized crap.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
@Scarlet So you will celebrate it?
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
@1dustpelt Because while you may or may not see the irrelevance in the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality, the rest of the American and global society is still stuck in the idiotic and antiquated mindset that homosexuality is something you should slam people down for. THAT'S why gay days are needed.
Posted by WriterSelbe 4 years ago
WriterSelbe
Saying we shouldn't have gay days means that we shouldn't have National Awareness Months, we shouldn't have holidays, no Christmas, Easter, we shouldn't have Memorial Day, etc. The same logic that contradicts gay days saves it. If we can't have gay day because that means we'd have to have heterosexual day, the same logic can be applied to everything.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396american5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: easy vote is easy
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ScarletGhost4396american5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it is kind of obvious, just read it.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
ScarletGhost4396american5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I completely disagree with Pro, but he won this debate. :P If you're up to debate this some other time, let me know.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
ScarletGhost4396american5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses based on the fact that Disney has the right to do as it pleases with its park, the fact that these days promote tolerance, and the fact that if anybody is uncomfortable, he has a right to not attend the park that day. Spelling and grammar was atrocious on the Con side.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
ScarletGhost4396american5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case needed proper spacing, but Con's grammar and spelling was poorer throughout. As for arguments, Con's case seemed to discuss society's distaste for gays and the belief that parents should be charged with teaching lessons on sexuality to children. However, Con never adequately responded to Pro's arguments on Disney's corporate prerogative being independent of societal beliefs, the social and educational benefits of gay days, and the fact that these days are forced on no one.