Heterophobic aid organisations should lose their charitable status

I too have imagined the day in which I might actually be defeated based not upon debate.org vote bombs, sore losers, sensitive teenagers whose feelings I've hurt, a flawed scoring system or awarded points, but rather on the actual performance and merit of my opponent's claims. Fortunately today will not be that day. You see, Brian attempts to show why it is unfair that some charities are considered legitimate or recognized by the government whereas others are not. To illustrate this point, he describes an organ donating situation, which - whether it's based on true events or not - deals with one or two individuals and their particular beliefs/situation. It has nothing to do with charities as an entity but rather the charity of one person to another regarding their own body parts and moral values. The problem with this example (and his later examples regarding friends of his starting a "charity" to let him travel or drink at the pub for free) is that those groups do not fit the established guidelines of what the government deems necessary in order to consider an organization a legitimate charity. Legitimate, in this case, means that the government will provide tax (and other) benefits from the State. According to the Man, a legitimate charity must: ï¿½ Be for PUBLIC benefit, NOT private gain ï¿½ Be a not-for-profit organization ï¿½ Can only trade if it is *directly connected to its charitable purpose* i.e. mission statement ï¿½ Not over-chare ï¿½ Make its work and benefits widely available. * Note: Some organizations are not charitable, as the work only benefits their members; for example, self-help groups and cooperatives. * ï¿½ Campaign only if relevant to its objects and NOT in a political way [1] Moreover, to be eligible for the Combined Federal Campaign, charities must meet at least 10 accountability standards found here --> [2]. So you see, the GMFA must have achieved these guidelines (which PROs proposed organizations never would) and others in order to be considered. Hamas, as my opponent pointed out, does not fit the bill because of how some donated money is in fact spent on weapons. That does not comply with the ideology that a legit charity must campaign only for relevant ideas to their mission statement and NOT in a political way. Moreover, his assertion about the donations to the BNP is based on an over-statement and manipulation of facts/ideas. That's like saying the American Cancer Society is bad because they don't donate money to cancer research or patients in Canada. It's not discriminatory if helping Americans is part of the actual mission. PRO concludes with, "So, while people should be free to give to heterophobic organisations such as GMFA, the Government should not legitimise their discriminatory policies by registering them as a charity." In other words, he feels that charitable work should be all-inclusive if it is to be considered legit or moral. That flawed ideology would mean that any original mission statement would have absolutely no value. For instance, he would consider a charity aimed at helping battered women specifically to be biased in the sense that it would not necessarily help battered men. Well, in that case I could say that a charity aimed at helping those with prostate cancer is biased in that it wouldn't be open to helping women or those without prostates. Sounds like a bonkers opposition, right? The point is, there are dozens of AIDS charities and organizations that are ready and willing to help heterosexuals. Additionally, even if there weren't, PRO or anyone else could start their own charity with their individual mission statement in mind (for example, even one exclusive to heterosexuals). Then, if it meets the standards associated with government recognized charities - and only then - the new organization could be established and considered legit. However to propose that charities with exclusive goals ignore their primary reason for inception on the basis that they have pre-requisite conditions to receive help is ludicrous. That's like saying I should be able to get money from charities who help the impoverished because I am a poor college student who probably has less money than those receiving aid. It simply doesn't add up as there are certain factors to consider. And by the way, when government starts recognizing the discrepancies of say legal/marriage laws between hetero and homosexuals, maybe THEN they can worry about the discrepancies of the private donation sector. Until then, it is wrong to ignore the legitimacy of upstanding charities aimed at helping people of a specific situation if it complys with the present standards of government-recognized legitimacy. The standards in place ensure that overt or unwarranted discrimination is intolerable. Thus, this is a non-issue. [1] http://www.voluntaryworks.org.uk... [2] http://www.charitablechoices.org...