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

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.