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

Observation 1: My opponent's concept for human rights is not more practical nor broad because as I've explained, his functioning with human rights is not how human rights functions. Human rights are supposed to be protect across any spectrum. What my opponent is doing is prioritizing human rights, implicitly saying that one group or person's human rights are more important than another. As I've explained, my opponent continue to make this false dichotomy that corporations can only choose between gay rights and these other social problems, eliminating any possibility that they cannot support both. Corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Starbucks, and others make astronomical amounts of money, enough to go around for a variety of causes. Yes, AIDS, STIs, and these other problems are common in all human sectors, but they're incredibly prevalent amongst the gay community. My mentioning of them was to prove that gay rights isn't just a non-issue like my opponent states and to show that my opponent's reasoning for prioritization of issues is arbitrary and has no balance of measure. He says corporations should not be responsible to define moral and ethical rights to society even though his proviso asks for corporations to fund other causes, implying that corporations have a responsibility to the community. Corporations are not defining anything. They're trying to support rights that already exist.Observation 2: My opponent argues absolutely nothing that I said in the previous round regarding this observation. Please extend it across the flow. Again, my opponent is just minimizing the concerns of the gay community where these problems are more prevalent than others and has no balance as to measure discrimination amongst other groups of people or the concerns they face. This doesn't matter because as I've explained, all human rights amongst all groups of people are meant to be protected whereas my opponent's system for protecting human rights makes some people's human rights more important than others, which is contradictory to the entire function of human rights.Contention 1: The exact words that my opponent said on the contention that gay rights should be accepted were the following: "I agree with this point but approval of gay right should not be on the aid of the corporations, as this is a individual choice to be a gay and corporations may be responsible for the need of human but not for the sexual choice of human." What my opponent has done is only make this argument more confusing because he's switching up what he's saying. First he said he supports that position, but now he's saying that he's neutral on it. In the original statement, there was no implication whatsoever that he was neutral on the position. He said he AGREES, positively affirming my statement. Sub-point 1a: This is not out of the discussion (1) Because my opponent hasn't argued anything I said in the previous round about this topic except for my quote saying "like gays." (2) He also said it should be least prioritized, which I've explained several times in this debate already is not the proper model for how human rights functions. What I've shown you is that human rights can be working in specific ways toward gays in order to deal with their concerns. This argument has been extended across the flow completely due to lack of any real arguments from my opponent.Sub-point 1b: My opponent didn't just accept a proposal....he AGREED with a proposal. As I've explained earlier, my opponent's changing up what he said. I don't think that my opponent understands what a second-class citizen is. A law or legislation would only create a second-class citizen if it discriminates against that person unfairly. My opponent seems to discriminate against gays himself when he states that gays are not the natural state in mankind, so they're going to be second-class citizens anyway. My question to my opponent is: should gays be considered as second-class citizens?Contention 2: For the sake of my opponent's understanding, I'll explain the illusionary dichotomy. My opponent keeps saying that organizations need to support these other causes over gay rights as if corporations can't help fund both. This immediately creates this false either-or scenario. My opponent has no balance for the need of humans because I've already explained several problems facing the gay community that are widely considered to be serious, and my opponent just shrugs it off as concerns that afflict everyone. These problems are greatly prevalent amongst the gay community and can be solved by demanding equal respect for homosexuals in order to reduce levels of bullying and low self-esteem within that community to prevent such problems. What I've shown here is that this is not non-issue. Again, my opponent has no evidence showing that homosexuality is just a sexual choice. My opponent further proves that his weighing of problems is arbitrary when he's supporting corporations to give money to research on sexual identity. Now THIS is non-issue. This doesn't help or solve anything, in contrast to supporting gay rights. [Conclusion]The reasons that I should be voted for today: [1] My opponent forfeited a round, meaning that the conduct vote goes to me for the better punctuality. [2] My sources are more plentiful and validate everything I said over my opponent's. My opponent has no sources to validate anything he himself is saying. [3] The argumentation vote should also go for me because my opponent's entire argument is filled with nothing but contradictory statements and reasoning, an arbitrary way of weighing and measuring the problems of society against those of the gay community, dropped points that prove wrong all of his statements, a false dichotomy, and an unbelievable disregard for the problems of the gay community, leaving him to just scoot the problems of the gay community to the back burner. My case is better because the logic has been sound the whole way through and acknowledges that all human rights for all people are important, in contrast to my opponent's perception, who states that one group's human rights should be prioritized.