Resolved: Disney World should continue to host its "gay days."

I'll basically go down the flow with my opponent's case beginning with his own contentions and then his rebuttals: Children: First of all, my opponent states that homosexuality is an adult topic with no real warrant as to why it should be an adult topic. This argument is pretty much begging the question. Childhood is one of the most critical learning periods for children, and with more and more experience and learning they attain during this time period, this only makes them grow into more knowledgeable teenagers and young adults in the future with consideration that this learning period was used wisely. If my opponent disagrees with any of what I just said, I can definately find scientific data explaining the enormity of the learning period as well as its existence. It doesn't make sense to keep children away from learning about different topics just because we feel it's "too strong," whatever my opponent's threshold for explaining what that is. This is all, of course, under the assumption that my opponent implies that parents in no way discuss "adult topics" with children. The only evidence he sort of gives is that kids these days are taught about sex in the 8th grade (which is sketchy all on its own considering his link didn't work), and in essence what he's implying is just to accept the status quo and leave it that without any sort of defense for the status quo itself. Connecting this response to my opponent's rebuttal, by the way, my opponent states that there are alternative pride events that can be used in order to spread the message of equality, but these can take place in large cities, where children can also come into contact and witness as well, meaning that there is still some possibility that a child can be exposed to this anyway. Discrimination: This doesn't make sense. Disney World is trying to advertise that homosexuality is equivalent to the need of respect as other sexualities, and based on the evidence that I have provided in my case, the public requires such an assimilation of mindset in order to protect the more marginalized minority. Disney World in no way is trying to advertise one sexuality over another because of this. They're in no way stating that heterosexuality or other sexualities are lower in respect or quality. If my opponent could please explain why this is discrimination in any way, this would be much appreciated. Purpose: This one doesn't make sense either. Yes, their main purpose is to entertain, but at the end of the day, corporations have the liberty to place an opinion about a topic or political affiliation. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting Disney World from doing this. Moving on to my opponent's rebuttals:Gay Pride: In my first rebuttal, I already explained that children have some possibility of being exposed to the alternatives considering that they take place in large cities. Looking at my opponent's alternatives: Gay pride festivals and gay pride parades are in essence the same exact thing: LGBT groups gathering in an area of a city in order to celebrate sexual identity. When you look at educating to the masses, my opponent provides absolutely no means of achieving this. If anything, Disney World's actions are educating the masses by doing this. He talks about how the list goes on, but he provides no sort of evidence about the other aspects of the list. Furthermore, if reaching benefits for homosexuals is the goal and earning the equal respect for the community is optimal, only using the alternatives will not reach that full potential. Branching out in the methodology could appeal to more of the masses. Economy: In this country where homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted at a national level as a result of the numerous events and ideologies promulgated by the LGBT community and its supporters? The amount of people in support of homosexuality is increasing whereas people in dissupport are decreasing in the United States (if evidence is needed, I will post in the second round). This means that increases in profits would ensue anyway under this function. He talks about how there would be such a high iput of money for the preparations, but the preparations require the input of other companies through commerce. What my opponent just said helps my case: it just turned from Disney World making a profit to more than one corporation making a profit because of the input needed to prepare. This inspires commerce, which increases the GDP.