THBT the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of 'gay-bourhoods'.

Introduction Gay neighborhoods are not the origin of gay culture, so it is illogical to assume that any social stigmata inflicted on gay individuals refers to the neighborhood in which they live, rather than the ‘culture’ in general. There is nothing exceptional about the critique of the ‘overcharged sexuality’ of our culture as a whole. Women are expected to look younger, adolescent girls and boys alike, are pressured by the media to fit into superficial ideals of beauty, and many a marketing strategy sells products via sex e.g., scantily clad entertainers, apparel worn and modeled in a seductive fashion, food and other products sold under the guise that it will increase one’s sexual appeal. The evolution in perspective from the traditional view of sex (only permitted within the sanctity of marriage) to its more permissive form, has been documented since the 60’s. The rise of single parenting and divorce, children born outside of marriage, and the sharp decline in the number of people getting married, or identifying as religious (the basis for these traditional views), all attest to this cultural change. The fact that these civil statuses, once seen as aberrant, are now accepted as commonplace (or not a reflection on the person’s value in society), is a positive prognosis for the LGBT community and evidence that all minority groups endure this transition of social acceptability. Signpost This round I aim to demonstrate how the overall weakness of Pro’s argument, the sources, the unfounded claims on which pro relies, along with self-contradiction. Rebuttals 1. Sources My opponent has cited two initial sources as a basis for their argument. The metro article only offers the opinion of a writer, identifying as a homosexual, who believes that the overemphasis on sex in the gay communities has a demoralizing effect on their public image, and is damaging to the movement. In the article he refers to a community Facebook page that is littered with lewd advertisements. This implies that his criticism is not limited to the geographical locale, but rather the branding of the LGBT community as a whole (those who live within and outside the gayborhoods.) There is little evidence that makes this the case for all gayborhoods, or that a representative sample of people (advocates or opponents) share his view. Most importantly, the article attributes the ‘over-sexualizing’ in the gay community to be detrimental to the LGBT cause, not the gayborhoods themselves. The second source is written by a Mike Slick; a religious leader who has pieced together a what seems like a scholarly article. Pro references this source as though it is something to which gays have to answer, but the author’s apparent bias and scholarly dishonesty, shows that his viewpoints would be the same whether gays lived in gayborhoods or not. 2. Self-Contradicting Claims My opponent initially states that gayborhoods are detrimental to the gay cause because of exclusion from mainstream society: “This means that fewer people know open homosexuals, which is a detriment to their acceptance because people are less likely to understand that homosexuals are normal people due to having less interactions with them.” However, this round, my opponent says, “While they may make a minority of homosexuals who are willing to stay in one feel valued” and “we should favour the majority over the minority, and the minority of homosexuals protected by gayborhoods is small compared to the majority of homosexuals who receive homophobia [have not headed for the homophilic hills] partially due to stereotypes gayborhoods reinforce” which changes the impact and contradicts the base of the entire argument. If the majority of homosexuals are living outside of gayborhoods, then contact with the outside world (which eradicates stigmata) is inevitable. This undermines my opponent’s exclusion argument, because on principle, the majority of a group is more likely to have more interactions (person to person) with mainstream society, than the minority group (who live inside gayborhoods), which means that even if gayborhoods do perpetuate stigma, the requisite interaction for the upward mobility of the gay community has not been hurt by the few that reside in gayborhoods. My opponent also says that the gays are trying to achieve social equality and that gayborhoods hurt their cause, then answers my rebuttal about enclaves with, “While other enclaves, such as Chinatowns and Jewish Ghettos, may present their cultures in a neutral or favourable light and therefore aid minority groups in gaining public acceptance, gayborhoods do not.” And then describes gayborhoods as “full of homosexuals who have experienced homophobia and therefore resent mainstream society and traditions.” If the gays now want separation from mainstream society, then what is the point of Pro’s argument? What cause are they hurting if they don’t want to integrate into the larger society? And why are they in the throes of such a large scale social movement to for equal rights? But moreover, it’s just not true that gays are rejecting of traditional values and social approval. Instead, a growing body of proves the contrary. Not only do gays contribute to the gentrification of the depressed urban areas, but they also attract straight couples to the area! There are countless articles on and sites that map out gay neighborhoods precisely because they are popular, affluent places to live, and not because people want to avoid the wrath of would-be scholar, Minister Mike Slick!!! Baseless claims My opponent continues in vain, stating that, “these raunchy places ultimately present homosexuals in a less favourable light than, say, Chinese seafood restaurants do, because they irk off the traditional ideas their operators resent and thus lead to homosexuals becoming more conflicted with mainstream views.” but historically, this is flagrantly untrue. Xenophobia has long been a challenge to social integration in America. Immigrants/minority groups were hardly ever accepted with open arms. All customs distinct from the native customs were considered aberrant, or ungodly, or un-American, at some point in the settlement of these individuals. Again, I give the source of atimeline of immigration in the U.S. and the conflicts that arose during those epochs. My opponent is mistaken to think that homosexuals are the only minority group who preferred their own values to mainstream America, that those values were deemed more favorable/traditional by Americans , or indeed that their location of residence had anything to do with how rapidly/slowly they were accepted by society! Exclusion from mainstream society/BoP Pro claims that I “missed the essence”’ and ‘went on an irrelevant rant’ in my rebuttal. I think Pro would do well that if they make a claim littered with loaded language, they should be prepared to answer for it. The way the warrant was presented with ‘loaded words/language’, with words like ‘ghettos, exclusion, and segregation, it implied that gays were being victimized, while also saying that gays choose gayborhoods which is really just poor form. So it was not irrelevant to point. Nonetheless, Pro goes on to clarify the original point, but claims however that they are “add[ing] on to my original point”, when they are clearly restating their initial claim, for which I am grateful!!! Social stigma and Burden of Proof Here my opponent attempts to reverse BoP, by saying that I did not “analyse why gaybourhoods do not cause social stigma”. Firstly, I have yet to see how any evidence supports Pro’s claim that gayborhoods do cause social stigma. This means that Pro has yet to prove, (beyond one man’s opinion about one community), that gayborhoods alone, are the cause for the the persistent stigma, and non-integration of gays in our society. This means Pro would have to distinguish the stigma that stems from society’s view of homosexuality as an immoral practice, from the specific conditions (worsening) that gayborhoods create.And with two (no, three) sources, I seriously doubt such a burden has been satisfied. I do not have to prove or submit evidence that gayborhoods do not cause a social stigma, only evidence against your claim that they do cause social stigma. I have also shown that historically that many minority groups experience the same transition to the larger society. I have shown how your argument is riddled with claims such as, “When homosexuals who have long endured stigma gather together, the first thing they would do is organise mass-rejections of the traditions that have caused them misery” and that gaybourhoods are inherently full of exhibits that blatantly violate our mainstream ideas about modesty and so on.” and so many more, have no factual foundation at all! Sexually transmitted diseases Again this addition does not have anything to do with gayborhoods. Pro assumes so much in order to make this data pertinent. 1. That there is some correlation between one’s sexual partner and the proximity with which they live to you (lol). 2., that promiscuity is not based on the values of the person, but the availability of sexual prospects, or the spread of STD’s among gays is lower in the portion of gay community living outside of gayborhoods….and only by offering the proof (by the source) that homophobic tendencies exist in the medical field…. I just.. I just.. Don’t know anymore... Conclusion I can only conclude at this point that the Pro clearly does not have a firm grasp of the logical argument. I do humbly beg his/her forgiveness but my faculties are not purposed at reining in their irrational/unfounded judgments about homosexuals and the exposing their disingenuous concern for the LGBT movement. There is a register for intelligent discourse and my opponent has failed on many occasions to rise to this standard. I will complete the debate, but my I must confess that I have grown a tad impatient...lol