Resolved: Ex-gay therapy ought be banned.

Thanks, Pro.Before we begin, I again wanted to clarify that not only am I completely against ex-gay therapy, but I am also gay myself (woot woot!). I just wanted the audience to know that my position in this debate is not coming from a place of anti-gay sentiments, but rather a place of devil's advocacy. [[ REBUTTAL ]] 1A. The onset of ex-gay therapy is inherently immoral. Before we accept this contention, Pro must provide us with a moral framework that he is using to reach this conclusion. Utilitarianism? Objectivism? Hedonism? By what standard is this "inherently" immoral? Pro bolds the main point of this contention when he notes, "There is no reason - with the exception of the stigma resulting from those very prejudices - why homosexual persons should be unable to enjoy a full and satisfying life." I completely agree, though this does not affirm the resolution. People should be able to decide for themselves what will make them have a fuller and more enjoyable life. Even if it turns out to be wrong, they should not be banned from seeking "treatment" for what they may consider harmful to themselves or lifestyle.It seems that the point Pro is trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with gay people, and again I agree with this sentiment (obviously). But while I personally don't believe that gays should have to change their sexual "preference," that does not establish why they should not be allowed to try if they so choose. Therefore this is irrelevant and ought to be dropped. 1B. The methodology effects of ex-gay therapy make the practice immoral.- The APA found "serious methodological problems" in most of the studies.- Studies show that long-term change in a person's sexual orientation is "uncommon."- Those who underwent such therapies frequently reported subsequent physical and emotional difficulties. First, Pro must be more specific about the "methodological problems" the studies use. The reason why will become clear further in the debate. Second, it doesn't matter if changing one's sexual orientation is uncommon. In commercials that sell diet pills or home gyms, they frequently advertise people who have lost a ton of weight allegedly due to the product being sold. On the bottom of the screen you'll notice a disclaimer that says "Results not typical." This is a legitimate disclaimer to potential consumers. If ex-gay agencies present factual statistics to potential clients (to the best of their knowledge) about the results, then it doesn't matter that the conversion rate is low - just as it doesn't matter if most people don't lose a lot of weight very quickly thanks in part to any given product. Instead, some people might claim that something helped them, and companies are allowed to use those testimonials - however uncommon they might be - to promote their product.While it's unfortunate that people who undergo ex-gay therapy can suffer from a lot of psychological damage, that can be said about a ton of things people do in their everyday lives. Soldiers are known to suffer PTSD at alarming rates and are put in life or death situations overtly, yet joining the armed forces is not prohibited. Athletes perform jobs that put excessive stress on their body which affects their susceptibility for physical injury, yet sports are not banned. Fisherman, loggers, mining machine operators, roofers and police officers also work risky jobs with a potential for harm, yet these activities are not banned. Plenty of people do dangerous things that can severely negatively impact their mental health on a daily basis, yet these things are usually not banned. Most things aren't. Why? Because people are responsible for their own lives and decisions. [[ ARGUMENTS ]]1. The government cannot stop people from seeking therapy of any kind for any reason. To suggest otherwise would be a gross overestimation of their rights and responsibilities. At best you can say the government has a responsibility to educate its citizens to the best of its ability, but not make the personal decisions for its citizens. 2. Many gay people have good intentions for seeking out therapy, however harmful it might be to their well-being. For example, I know gay people who come from very traditional and conservative households whose families have a hard time accepting their sexuality. Sometimes these individuals themselves have a hard time accepting it due to their cultural upbringing. Some of them genuinely wish to suppress their sexual urges in order to avoid conflict. While it might be harmful to them (depending on the situation - not always) to do so, it might be worth it on a cost-benefit analysis to avoid the drama and negative issues that would arise if they chose to act on their sexual urges rather than assimilate into whatever role they want to play in their respective social circles. While this sounds silly to some, I believe it is a personal decision that each individual should be allowed to make on their own. We cannot determine what will maximize their happiness - only they can guess that. Example: Two female friends of mine from HS used to only date girls. One of them comes from a traditional Catholic Italian background; the other moved to the ultra-conservative North Carolina. Both of them now date men. The latter is engaged, pregnant and has never been happier. I believe she is truly in love with her partner, which I assume means she enjoys their sexual relationship as well. The same goes for the Italian girl. Both of these women have assimiliated into hetero-normative lifestyles, and are thriving and happy. Is it possible they enjoy sex with women? Sure. But if they are happy suppressing it and believe that doing so will make them happiest, that's their prerogative in order to try and learn to do so. Which brings me to my next few points...3. Sexuality is complicated. There is no black and white. I know A LOT of people who identify as lesbians yet enjoy sex with men. I tell them they're bisexual, and they usually make some comment about not being able to relate "emotionally" to men... yet sometimes I think they could. After all, what is romantic love other than love accompaniedby sexual attraction and/or gratification? Sometimes people think they are heterosexual their entire lives until they have an incredibly intense experience with someone of the same sex unexpectedly. Most people are probably bisexual to some degree. This means that once again, if heterosexuality is a significant part of one's culture, then an individual should be able to learn more and explore their options. 4. Unfortunately many people are brainwashed by their respective religions. According to world statistics, 86% of people are religious [1]. Most religions are anti-gay. I don't believe in religion influencing people's beliefs; however, they do - particularly when it comes to politics and personal relationships. That is why many Christians, Muslims, etc. are against homosexuality and gay marriage. People have the right to freedom of religious persecution. If Churches or religious groups teach anti-gay sentiments, that is their Constitutional right to do so. [[ CONCLUSION ]] People don't have to abide by ex-gay therapy, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to try it and see if it works for them. Individuals have various, often legitimate reasons for seeking out ways to come to terms with or reconcile their sexuality, which usually isn't black and white. The government nor anyone else has the right to prohibit these people from exploring their options. If ex-gay therapy doesn't work for them, it might strengthen their resolve that their sexuality is an innate part of who they are. This might even provide some relief and sense of comfort with their identity. [1] http://richleebruce.com...