Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Observation. Corporations in the resolution.In my last round I argued that the resolution only provides that corporations which ALREADY support gay rights should instead remain neutral. As I mentioned, it says nothing of any supposed obligations on corporations which are either already neutral or which in fact actively oppose gay causes. My point in observing this wording is to point out an apparent inconsistency in my opponent's case. He argues that if corporations supporting gay rights do not provide support, then corporations which don't support them and do provide support to their causes (my opponent mentions the NOM as an example), then the fight for gay rights will not be advanced. There is a problems with this contention and it's relation to the resolution though.(1) It is based off of obligation (from the need to respect gay rights) but inconsistently applies such an obligation in that it makes no mention of an obligation on anti-gay rights corporations to stop supporting anti-gay causes or to start supporting pro-gay ones. Why do neutral corporations have an obligation whereas corporations which are of net hurt to gay rights causes immune to such obligation and how does my opponent logically draw the line in this obligation?Contention. Gay Rights Require Passage.I apologize to my opponent for the mix up. I defined supporting gay rights in a very general context just to lay out the basics and thought my opponent would be more specific on the gay rights he had in mind for this debate. Anyways though, as that is out of the way I feel like we can move on. Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.My opponent has failed to properly support his assertion that denying homosexuals marriage or adoption abilities (those were the only two things explicitly mentioned in my own definition which my opponent has accepted) makes them second class citizens. On non-recognition of gay marriage by the government, it would be my contention that the government has no place recognizing marriages in the first place, whether gay or straight. So while the current policy of marriage recognition is inconsistent and unjustified, it is not owing to the recognition of gay marriage but to the recognition of marriage at all. This is because taxes payed by those who have no intention of marrying are invariably used to fund the various benefits that come with State-recognition of one's marriage (military and veteran's benefits for spouses, retirement benefits for deceased spouses, various tax exemptions which are made up for by non-married tax payers, etc.[1]). The solution is not to lobby for more inconsistent marriage policy by recognizing gay marriage, but to end State recognition altogether and either privatize marriage contracts entirely or leave their recognition to various religious organizations.On gay adoption, I refer my opponent to my observation regarding the resolution. My opponent's own plan in regards to the resolution is that corporate support of these causes is necessary for their recognition. However, he has failed to actually provide a practical plan in this matter in that the supposed obligation only applies to corporations already supporting gay rights. Since gay rights have not been fully recognized yet, this would mean that corporations currently supporting such causes are insufficient to attain that goal. And since my opponent's plan does not refer obligation to either corporations who are neutral or those actively opposed to gay rights, my opponent's plan would not be sufficient even if we were to accept his unsupported premise that rights exist and refer moral obligation on others.Sub-C2. Negative Utility of Denial.In defense of my contention of incompatibility of my opponent's both utilitarian and deontological rights angles in order to support the resolution, my opponent defends this by arguing that the purpose of rights is to " provide a rationale as to why not to commit atrocity and have negative effects results." However, this does not in itself justify the existence of rights. All it does it provide reasoning why people would want rights to exist. This reasoning fails to actually justify the existence of rights since one must assume the need to protect the things we call rights in order to decide to establish them in the first place. Consider the reasoning stated more clearly:>There ought to be a rationale as to why not commit atrocities against people.>The best way to do this is to establish basic inalienable rights.As we can see, the basic premise on which it is founded assumes the need to stop negative utility behaviors against people. But here my opponent has simply traded in the unsupported presupposition that people have inherent rights to the unsupported presupposition that utilitarianism is a justified normative ethics. But this point is not itself self evidence. One has to justify it before they can create legitimate obligation on others. If utilitarianism is not rationally supported then all it's proponents are doing is creating unethical obligation on others based on their own personal ethical sentiments. My opponent has failed to justify a utilitarian ethical framework and thus his derivation of rights from it is unjustified and unsupported.===Sources===[1] http://www.nolo.com...