THBT the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of 'gay-bourhoods'.

Opening Statement: The gay rights movement in the united states is simply yet another a demand, like the many before it, that the American government and public recognize the equal value and rights of all people. The struggle of minority groups to be accepted into/recognized as equal by the majority population is as integral to our national identity as the stars and stripes or the bald eagle. [1] We are reminded of this ongoing struggle each time we read the fine print that closes applications/petition for services from sectors both public and private: "[Equal opportunity laws prohibit] discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability unrelated to job requirements, genetic information, military service, or other protected status." Upon the government’s fulfillment/acknowledgment that protection is necessary for marginalized groups, these Americans are left to fall into the fold as best they can. This is not to say that the road to social justice is not entirely without incident, but rather, historically this is something that marginalized groups endure on their quest for social equality in America [1]. It is this fold, which I believe to be the basis of this debate. That is, how various social and ethnic groups typically 'carry on' in our society. The melting pot long has been a widely misused analogy to represent the diversity of American Society. The ideal that groups of varying backgrounds mix and blend to contribute their 'flavor' to a unique, homogenous American identity, though the case for a few select places, is much more the exception than the rule [2]. Around the globe, people have come to lament assimilation and the erosive effects on language and culture [3] So the more accurately descriptive metaphor would be the tossed salad, where groups approximate and engage other groups out of necessity, but hold fast to their distinct identities within the society [4]. Whether its attributed to poor social cohesion policies of federal/local governments, or biological hardwiring, most Americans value their social identity and are content with such affiliations, as long as they are not denied equal rights or opportunities. Constructive argument: So the case that I aim to present is that: 1. the more group identities you share with another person, the more likely it is that you will share some other social affiliation with them, even that they will be your neighbor, and that this likelihood is anything but revelatory, as we all desire to be valued [?6?], and being surrounded by those who share and respect the values that we hold is a practical means of achieving this. 2. The fact that we do seek refuge in commonality does not, in and of itself, hamper any group identity's cause (movement for that cause) to be recognized/valued by the society at large. Many social scientist view enclaves as a secure starting point for minority groups from which they eventually integrate into the larger society [4]. Rebuttals: 1.Exclusion from mainstream society My opponent precludes the agency inherent in the usage of the terms 'exclusion' and 'segregation'. These usages in the context of civil movements have always meant that one is forced into exclusion by a society. The fact that gay individuals choose/seek out these neighborhoods and settle without coercion, and that all gay individuals do indeed live or settle outside of gay-borhoods, nullifies such a claim. If I choose to book a vacation in Las Vegas, affectionately nicknamed 'Sin City', it can hardly be said that I was forced into (or am subjecting myself to) exclusion. I simply choose to go that offers the experience I want to have. 2.Social Stigma Though it cannot be denied that social stigma exists, it cannot be said that acting on stigmata toward gays is more legally tenable than acting on the stigmata towards any other marginalized group. This is the whole point of the movement, not to ostensibly eradicate stigmata, but rather to protect their rights pursue their livelihood, and preferred lifestyle, like any other American. This is a toil they will endure whether they isolate themselves in ‘lavender ghettos’ or not. Conclusion: In earnest, we simply have not seen how solely living closely with people who share one's social identity has impeded a group's chances of being valued by the society at large. My opponent mentions 'quasi-ghettos', a reference to Jews, who are known for their isolationist ideology. This however, has not caused our society to dismiss the amazing contributions they've made to it, or the world. In light of this, and the fact that gays are more likely to have to encounter the world outside their enclaves, e.g., work/business, vacation/travel, legal/public services), and that their numbers cut across many social cleavages (race, religion, class, political affiliation), they have many resources at their disposal for their movement. Of course there will be those who still choose not to accept them, but this won't be a ground breaking discovery either. Lol http://cw.routledge.com... http://fivethirtyeight.com... http://www.un.org... http://www.nyu.edu... http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.stat.columbia.edu...