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

IntroductionIn a world where homophobia, though declining, is still alive and well, having homosexuals flock to gaybourhoods is a short term solution that ultimately harms them through isolation and a tarnishing of their public image. Thus, gay rights movements should mourn the emergence of gaybourhoods that have harmed social acceptance due to their negative effects on homosexuals’ interactions with mainstream society.SignpostIn this round of arguments, I shall first show why my opponent’s arguments are wrong, then show why their criticisms on my points are incorrect, and finally bring forth a new point: sexually transmitted infections.Rebuttals1. My opponent has presented the point that gaybourhoods make homosexuals feel valued. While they may make a minority of homosexuals who are willing to stay in one feel valued, they ultimately harm more people than they protect because of the fact that they worsen homosexuals’ public image and lead to less social acceptance. On principle, we should favour the majority over the minority, and the minority of homosexuals protected by gayborhoods is small compared to the majority of homosexuals who receive homophobia partially due to stereotypes gayborhoods reinforce. 2. My opponent has made the argument that enclaves are a great place for minority groups to start gaining acceptance. While other enclaves, such as Chinatowns and Jewish Ghettos, may present their cultures in a neutral or favourable light and therefore aid minority groups in gaining public acceptance, gayborhoods do not. Gayborhoods are full of homosexuals who have experienced homophobia and therefore resent mainstream society and traditions. As such, they are full of nightclubs and other raunchy places that pop up, as if in protest of the rejected traditions. [1]These raunchy places ultimately present homosexuals in a less favourable light than, say, Chinese seafood restaurants do, because they irk off the traditional ideas their operators resent and thus lead to homosexuals becoming more conflicted with mainstream views. ReconstructionExclusion from mainstream societyIn response to my point about how gaybourhoods make homosexuals interact less with the outside world and therefore make them gain acceptance more slowly, Con focused on my usage of the word of “exclusion” and went on an irrelevant rant about how homosexuals weren’t forced to live in gaybourhoods. They have missed the essence of my argument. To add on to my original point, due to homophobia, gaybourhoods might become one of the few places where homosexuals are willing to “come out of the closet”. Thus, while they might currently be a safe place for homosexuals, they ultimately harm acceptance for homosexuals on the long run because fewer people would have experience with publicly homosexual people. One can say that they create a divide between homosexuals and non-homosexuals in such a way.Social stigmaMy opponent, in response to my point about how social stigma caused by the raunchiness of gaybourhoods can affect public acceptance, claimed that stigma would occur regardless of isolation. This is essentially irrelevant, because my opponent did not analyse why gaybourhoods do not cause social stigma. When homosexuals who have long endured stigma gather together, the first thing they would do is organise mass-rejections of the traditions that have caused them misery. Thus, gaybourhoods are inherently full of exhibits that blatantly violate our mainstream ideas about modesty and so on. With their rise, homosexuals’ reputations have been harmed by these anti-traditional exibits because they are hard to swallow by mainstream society; the flambouyantness caused by isolation is undeniably a detriment to acceptance. In addition, gaybourhoods isolate the public homosexuals from everyone else because they are one of the few places where they would feel comfortable coming out; thus, they contribute to isolation that ultimately makes people have less experience interacting with gay people. Constructive pointsSexually transmitted diseasesAs I have explained before, gaybourhoods are, by nature, places that encourage promiscuity. This has led to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases within the gay community. There are two reasons why this should bring the gay rights movement to regret gaybourhoods. Firstly, sexually transmitted diseases lead to discrimination by people who became homophobic because they perceive homosexuals as “unclean”. In addition, it has led to homosexuals being unable to do the same things as others, both because of homophobic hysteria and actual concerns over STIs. Many places bar homosexuals from donating blood. [2] Secondly, sexually transmitted diseases directly threaten the welfare of homosexuals because they can cause death and health issues. ConclusionIn this debate, I have demonstrated how homosexuals can be harmed by gaybourhoods due to many reasons—social stigma, isolation, and sexually transmitted diseases. My opponent’s points have not stood up to scrutiny. Thus, let it be resolved that this house believes that the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of “gaybourhoods”. Sources[1]http://touch.metro.us...[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...