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

I like to clarify that all the arguments, I presented, were based on the priorities of the current major problems of society where corporation should spend valuable time and money. This is self explanatory that corporations should be neutral on the gay right, consider it to be less priorities. Well this time perhaps, I have to be more descriptive to my opponent so he does not feel an unnecessary assumption of burden and proof. Observation 1: My priority concept for human right is more practical and broad then a flawed concept. Consider the situation of a public relation officer in a corporation when a question arise for the donation or social charity. They always select sectors of human society getting affected with the Fatal Diseases, Malnutrients, homelessness. You can refer, from bill Clinton to Warren Buffett, giving important to more serious issues, then a non issue; gay rights. My opponent has given examples of AIDS, STI, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism etc which are common in all human in all sectors, from reach to poor, young to elder However I may agree that, there may be chances of bullying or rejection for gay/lesbian but again in this situation corporations should not be responsible to define moral and ethical rights to society. Observation 2: Yes I do agree that my comparison was for the mass population to gay population because when corporation will decide an donation sector, they will think in the similar way as I described. Secondly, yes, they give scholarships but it is a constructive decision towards the society. An scholarship is an investment for the future of society, an aid to good student and there may be many other constructive aids from corporations but scholarship can`t be compare to the gay aids because one is a constructive step and second just, facilitate a person. Contention 1 My statements were crystal clear but it seems they I have to be more descriptive due to avoid my opponent confusion: My opponent proposed that "Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society". I agreed to that but even, If my opponent has been proposed; "Gay rights should not be indubitably accepted in society". I would be agree again because I am neutral on the gay right. To avoid my opponent confusion i should give one example. If a representative of gay society will approach to the bill gates that they are requesting to parliament for certain law changes for the wellness of gay, bill gates may say, ok, if you wish to go parliament but it does not means that he is positive, It does not mean that he will donate 5 million to support. A neutral accept the proposal and also do not mind the denial. It does not mean that it is positive, it means; it is not rejected. Sub-point 1a Certainly I would have been arguing in section 1a, if it would have been debate for the human right important to the society or not. There was not certain description for the gays earlier however now my opponent has mentioned LIKE GAYS in brackets with the same disadvantaged and discriminated minority which is already has been discussed in the observation 1 so again this is out of the discussion now. Sub-point 1b: As I have already stated that accepting a proposal does not mean that supportive a cause. Either society make a right or law, even do some recognition, it is going to be second class citizen, because it does not represent mass. If this world would has been of gay and lesbian only, a limited group of straight people would have been arguing to not consider a second class citizen. So Gay/lesbian are not at the natural stage of a mass mankind which will make them second class even after the law or even right as well. Sub-point 1c: I wish to clarify that under the scope of debate private organisations are neutral for the gay right. They are not denying it. However causes are non serious to get attraction of private organisation. Contention 2 I request opponent to mention any further illusory dichotomy in my neutral views however my agenda is same that earning money is difficult corporations and donating is next stage. It should be planned for the need of human, not for sexual choices. Furthermore I would prefer to suggest corporations to invest money in diagnose the cause that why some people started to get attracted to the same sexes then opposite, in abnormal way, then to be positive to gay right.