Resolved: Parents ought be banned from forcing minors into ex-gay therapy or conversion practices.

Note that while my opponent comes up with new names for the points, they are really still the same. I'll be using the original names to avoid confusion. Inherant ImmoralityMy opponent's case is essentially that the moral view of homosexual-bashers is unwarrented. I don't defend homosexual bashers, I defend gay camps. The two are not exactly the same. A Christian may genuinely love homosexuals but wish for them to change their behaviour, sort of like how I like people who eat at McDonalds but would love for people to eat healthier food. Such a Christian would not be a homosexual basher, but may well choose to send his kids to gay camp if they turn out gay. So is this view of morality warrented? My opponent claims a moral view is warrented if it leads to a happy and harmonious world. If the common gay-camp conception of God is real, then yes, gay camps do lead to a better world. The practice of homosexual bashing may not, but that isn't the topic of this debate (recall that I've already proven that the motion in no way impacts gay discrimination and stigmitisation). If such a God is not real, then no, gay camps fail to lead to a better world. So the big question is really whether this God is real is not. You'll recall that last round I stated that since my opponent has the burden of proof and is bringing the claim, it is he who must provide the justification for why he is so sure that their moral beliefs are unwarrented. Since he has defined his warrant in terms of the harm, and since the harm is entirely premised on the existance of this diety, he must disprove their God in order to carry the moral point with his own criterion. My opponent's latest round adds nothing new to this except to label everybody who works at a gay camp a homosexual basher. That's unfair, and besides, gay camps only reflect the problem, they do not cause or proliferate it into wider society. Validation is inherantly deeply subjective. Is that particular miracle, or other sign from God, validation or is it something else? Validation is thus also not a good standard. Objectivity is also deeply problematic as a standard because the whole message of tolerance and "being gay is OK" is not an objective belief. So I agree that the gay camps do not match these moral criteria, however, denying parents the power to send their children to any center that allows them to explore how their sexuality and religion relate is not morally better in this regard. Besides this, my opponent presents no warrent for why validation or objectivity are necessary grounds for allowing something to happen. You might as well stop all religious belief because the validation is uncertain and the beliefs are inherantly subjective. Ultimately, as I've said right from the start, every belief is biased against everybody who believes the opposite. Subjective "feelings" of minority groups, be they hardcore religious fundamentalists or super-proud gay people, is thus an insufficient standard. As to tolerance, I never even suggested gay camps lead to tolerance. My opponent still presents no evidence or analysis as to why not sending kids to gay camp creates tolerance. Finally, with the APA point, he continues to assert his own and the APA's divine authority to say what is the "right" use of science and what is the "wrong" use of science, regardless of how many members they have or what support they claim. I continue to maintain this point is both disrespectful and counter to the very ideals of science, as I explained last round. Claiming that science is "for" one thing or another is not evidence, it's an assertion. You also need to respond to my material to make this point stand. Long-Term HarmMy opponent conceeds that the APA found that the studies were inadequite at determining that sexual identities were changed by gay camps. Absence of evidence for the efficiency of gay camps is not evidence of absence. Recall that the APA ignored most of the 80 studies because of methodological issues. The biased sampling thing is this - if a person is a hardcore Christian, they're less likely to agree to be sampled by the APA because of the APA's longstanding anti-gay-camp stance. Hardcore Christians, however, are also more likely to have more effectively suppressed their old sexual identity because of the added impact of faith. My opponent asserts that the validity of morality requires some evaluation to test. I agree fully, however, that assumes that a moral belief is "valid". I've been asserting all along a relativistic view of morality, that doesn't have valid or invalid dichotomies. The whole notion that one set of actions will make the world better while another will make the world worse is flawed because different people have different standards of what is "better" and what is "worse". DiscriminationThe first half of this point is a single sentance that is, unfortunately, so grammatically wrong that I cannot interpret it without some serious judgement on my part. Given how we've already seen I'm prone to adding in extra arguments to my opponent's case, I'd prefer that my opponent take a moment to get that sentance in order, and then I promise to give it lots of attention. About family cohesion, I don't think a particulary tolerant family is relevant to this debate as they're unlikely to force their kids to gay camp. We're talking about the extremists, the people who'd prefer not to know their kids than to not know their God. For many, that's not an irrational calculus. About punishing based on violation of rights, that's both an arbritrary standard and, more importantly, a non-applicable one. The reason why it's not applicable is because no rights are violated at these camps - it's not like people have the right to not know about what their religion says about their sexuality. Human rightsSection two is an interesting right because there's an issue of normalcy - all kids must have normal spiritual development. Gay camps do provide spritual development, and it isn't unhealthy in a spiritual sense, but it isn't normal. The law here varies by country. In the USA, for example, there is a constitutional over-riding privilege of freedom of religion. Other countries, particulary Islamic countries, force kids to have the same spiritual development as every other kid in the country to ensure that their spiritual development is "normal". I think the latter view is inappropriate as it turns the right into a restriction. Gay camps are about offering kids choices, and helping them if they choose to accept their faith over their sexuality. If they don't make that choice, then at least they can overcome the insecurity about their sexuality and religion. Weirdness in puberty is normal, but being gay presents unusual challenges that inherantly make spiritual development of these children anything but. Unusual challenges demand unusual treatment. It's a false assertion that everybody who goes to gay camp goes to get treated - many go just to explore their faith and their sexual identity, given the difficulties and uncertainties all teenagers face. Is it a human right to be normal? If so, we wouldn't be human. Two DiscriminationsThis point still awaits a response.