Conversion Therapy is Wrong

I apologise to Pro, I have the wrong end of the stick. I missed a sentence in his debate description and wrongly concluded. . "I'm going to make an argumentative speech advocating for making conversion therapy conducted on minors illegal". . Would be the subject of the debate. As Pro seems happy to continue debating this proposition, I'll also continue. You'll remember that I had two central contentions: 1: Homosexuals are disadvantaged inextricably due to their sexuality. 2: To make conversion therapy illegal would be to deny LGBTs the opportunity to seek a better outcome for themselves. My opponent has made no argument against either contention, He has only tried to shift the burden of proof so that he, Who wants to introduce the new law, Does not need to prove that it will be beneficial. My opponent isn't arguing for a law banning forced conversion therapy. He is not arguing for a law banning all therapy that has been proven unsuccesful. He is not arguing for a law against abusive therapy. All of his citations regarding those types of therapies are irrelevant because he is arguing for an arbitrary law that bans all therapy conducted on those under 18, Including therapy that could have 100% success rate and no negative side effects. Why would somebody argue for that, Absent ideological investment? My opponents proposition would potentially deny 100% proven, Beneficial therapy to a homosexual person who sees homosexuality and heterosexuality as perfectly equal, And hence has no reason not to switch to heterosexuality to avoid that one immutable disadvantage of homosexuality that my opponent has not denied. Perhaps due to some twist of fate, Unknown in the future, The science will not be available, Or not be affortable to him. . Laws must consider all potential outcomes and what great an injustice would it be, In that scenario, To deny such a person their right to change? The burden of proof is entirely on my opponent but thankfully he has already cited facts that undermine his position. Every cited souce that allows any degree of success makes my opponents position untenable, For instance: "Of 143 "ex-gays" who underwent conversion therapy, 89% of men reported having feelings of attraction to people of the same-sex" That's 11% of success and what my opponent omits is that 37% of women, In the same study, Reported that they now have a heterosexual orientation. What greater success could we see in the future with the advancement of science and psychology? So long as there is the potential for success, Which my opponent has kindly already demonstrated that there is, A law banning all such therapy is disproportionate and indefensible. My opponent needed to be more moderate in his proposition. A law against unsuccesful or damaging therapies would be a different matter. My opponent says: "as I have pointed out before, The most successful outcome you can recieve from conversion therapy is a traumatized, Damaged patient as a result of the therapy's malicious practices, And never has the patient proceedd to lead a heterosexual life" Sadly he provides no support for this, And it is infact disproven by his own sources above. "So when you admit a homosexual person into conversion therapy, You're telling them that they're a sinner, An unwitting follower of the devil. You're telling them that their sexual attraction towards the same-sex - which will stay with them no matter how much therapy they undergo - is sinful. " Not only is this completely untrue and Pro has no grounds to invoke religion into this, But he entirely ignores a homosexual who commits themselves into conversion therapy because they see homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, Other than this one immutable negative of homosexuality which my opponent has done nothing to disprove. Pro would deny this person their liberty, Choice and freedom to engage in potentially 100% successful therapy. On the question of a homosexual gene I am sorry that my opponent has misunderstood the science. He says: "sexual attraction and orientation is almost conclusively linked to genetics, As seen with research conducted on the Xq28 marker" Mustanski et al. (2005) "did not find linkage to Xq28" [1] American Society of Human Genetics (2012) found: "our findings, Taken in context with previous work, Suggest that genetic variation in each of these regions contributes to development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation". Female sexual orientation does not seem to be linked to Xq28, " [2] Pro needs to imply genetic determinism, But: "researchers have pointed that the evidence of genetic influences should not be equated with genetic determinism. According to Dean Hamer and Michael Bailey [the same people that Pro originally cited], Genetic aspects are only one of the multiple causes of homosexuality. " [3] My opponent would need to prove genetic determinism to show that all therapy would be futile and hence justify his law against all such therapy, But the science only shows a tentative link between genomics and homosexuality, And that it is far from a deciding factor. Again, It is not my burden to prove that future therapy could be much more successful. My opponent proposes the new law, It is his burden to be duly dilligent and show that such a therapy could not exist. Otherwise, My opponent admits his proposition could ban successful, Harmless, Scientifically proven therapy that helps LGBTs avoid this one immutable disadvantage. Only an ideological driven monster would want that, And I am sure my opponent is not one of those. Sources will be in the comments section as my post isn't appearing with them.