Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

Marketing: The simple fact that my opponent tells you himself that there is no law that makes Disney respect the morals of the consumer when he just said earlier that the company should respect the morals of the consumer and the law protects that aspect shows you he has no clue about what he's talking about. He says that the consumers can make the company go bankrupt, but then he talks about how homosexuality (apparently) has become mainstream and popular in society, implying that there's a reduced chance that this will actually occur. To be quite honest, I lost track of the course of this particular focus on the debate because first he makes statements about how Disney should respect morals, but now he says that Disney doesn't have to. I've proven that parents can just go to another park if they feel that their morals are not being represented, although my opponent even says himself that acceptance for homosexuals has been popular apparently. I definately win in this argument. Equality: When did this happen? What were the conditions in which this happened? My opponent explains nothing on this. This example is mostly irrelevant. Narrow-mindedness: Although I'm very staunch in my belief that homosexuality is perfectly normal and fine under the overarching concept of morality, I've allowed my opponent to make his ideas about homosexuality. I listened to every word and considered the arguments completely. I've looked at the overarching evidence, and I refuted using logic rather than just applying some kind of axiomatic mindset to everything (like how my opponent does). Expressing opinions is one thing. Expressing opinions with not even the slightest inclination toward listening to opposing arguments and forcing down a mindset on others without allowing even the slightest amount of individual thought (as my opponent supports) is another. Why did I refuse the morals of other people? I explained it with logical flow. I explained that these "morals" bring problems in the society, which is the complete opposite of what morals are supposed to do. I explained that there's no warrant to these morals in any way. My opponent just slaps on a "you're just wrong, and I'm just right" mindset to it. Who is the narrow-minded one here?Widely Accepted Gays: This doesn't even remotely make sense. If gays were so heavily accepted today, they wouldn't have 4 times more probability to commit suicide. There wouldn't be only 8 states that have legalized gay marriage while all the others have either adopted constitutinal bans against gay marriage or just altogether have not accepted it in general. We wouldn't hear too many stories of victimization and bullying. However, we do. These problems still face our society. Why vote for PRO: I may have lost the conduct vote by now, but all of the other votes are mine. My opponent has nothing but completely incoherent logic throughout the entirety of this debate coupled along with questionable rebuttals against my arguments, meaning I should have the argumentation vote. My opponent doesn't have even one resource, in contrast to me, meaning I should win the sources vote. My opponent can't type for three seconds without making a run-on, a comma splice, misspelling, etc. I should have the grammar vote. Pretty much every direction in the vote for this debate looks toward me essentially.