Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Accusing your opposition to the same thing they are accusing you of is not irrelevant. Even if alternative perspectives are also guilty, this does not make yours any less guilty. So, yes, it is quite irrelevant. http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/ 02/03/change-ethics-homosexual-sex-extramarital-affairs/This shows that religious opposition to homosexuality has decreased while opposition to infidelity has increased, and argues that religious support for same-sex marriage may stem from the interest of reinforcing fidelity within non-heterosexual relationships. If you are attempting to argue that this is equitable to deluding/rejecting religion, then you are grossly over-extending both the evidence and analysis because there is no proof contained therein that this represents deluding/rejection instead of evolution.You still have provided no evidence that children raised to be accepting are more likely to become homosexual. Consequentially, I consider this point ceded.I did a pretty long post about this elsewhere, male homosexuals are still half of the new HIV cases and only 1% of the population. In Europe they are still many many times more likely than a heterosexual to contract HIV even though there is little to no stigma there.Nice source citation. Also, entirely non-responsive to my point and my evidence. I was not arguing that homosexuals have a lower rate of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. I was pointing out that that rate has dropped in the homosexual population in correlation to increased acceptance, which substantiates my earlier argument that the higher rate is itself a consequence of resource/education inaccessibility engendered by discrimination (whereas the rate has actually increased within the heterosexual population). You have not addressed this point; failure to do so again will lead me to conclude you cede the point.You said heterosexuals are more likely to contract other diseases. You should have used the qualifier "some". I wouldn't have disputed it. Your original statement implies HIV is the only STD to impact male homosexuals more than others.That was fairly implicit in my wording. If you no longer contest that point, however, then your overall point is completely voided; being homosexual may mean greater risk of contracting some STIs but being heterosexual may mean greater risk of contracting some other STIs. The harm is non-unique.Actually you can because I just clarified what I meant. As an atheist you should appreciate that if someone is changing long held, indisputable beliefs about God to something they are more comfortable with, what they are worshiping is not God. They are just worshiping their own imagination. As an atheist, what I actually believe is that all religious belief is a projection of what people want to believe without the need to actually legitimate those beliefs through reason or proof. You are all worshiping your own imagination. At any rate, not all religious people condemned homosexuality to begin with so alteration is not at issue.Christian beliefs do not contain anything about a capability of its followers to stop all the sin in the world. We can't even stop all the sin within the church. We can, however, lessen it ( see the report above )Your report does not show that in the least. This is also non-responsive to my point: even where religion does good this does not counteract the bad it also does.Moreover... if Christianity cannot solve for divorce then why make the point to begin with? Changing what is a disease and what isn't a disease to appease political correctness simply does not make any sense. This is not why the condition was declassified. It was declassified because further research indicated to practitioners that it was not actually a disorder. If you are going to claim otherwise, then you need to actually prove the "trans agenda" at work. Otherwise you are arguing an unfounded conspiracy theory.Yes, and the best treatment for someone who is suicidal is to shove them off a bridge. Problem solved.No, because suicidality is responsive to therapy. Gender dysphoria is not.You are mutilating your body, not because you particularly want to, but because you want others to see you as a man? Has it ever crossed your mind that you will NEVER be a man. It is 100% impossible to change genders. You can try to imitate a man, sure. You can change the outward appearance of your body, good for you. Go through with it and for the rest of your life you wont' be a man, you won't be a woman, you will just be something in between. I am "mutilating" my body only as much as anyone who gets plastic surgery, tattoos, or piercings; this is my body and I can do whatever I want to it without needing your approval. You are conflating gender identity and biological sex. Gender identity is a cognitive state, biological sex is a physical state; the former can change though you are correct that physical alterations cannot perfectly accomplish a sex change. You presume that I consider myself to be a man in the typical, cisgender sense of the word; I don't. I am a transgender man (call it "inbetween" if it makes you more comfortable), and despite the ignorant bigotry I face every day I am comfortable being that person. I am not transitioning because I need yours or anyone else's approval; I am transitioning because it is safer. Reading the abstracts, there are again differences between what the writers considered "negative" and what I would consider "negative". You misunderstand both the abstract and my point. They list all the causal correlates studies, including the potential non-negatives. Your pointing this out does not disprove the link between traditional masculinity and aversion to getting proper psychological help (unless you truly mean to suggest this is not a negative).I concede there is an overwhelming resource you have that I don't have. You can prize your resource all you want, I prize mine. Again though, I am always interested in surveys and statistics. I think most of them you have brought me help me as much as they help you.You don't have a resource to prize. You have failed to substantiate any of your arguments, having even attempted to do so only for one of your many assertions. You have not disproved or turned my substantiation to your side (claiming it is not doing it).ok fine, Illegal immigrants vs transsexuals.I have no idea what you are trying to do by comparing apples to oranges, and at this point I honestly do not care.If you are an atheist you think the bible is man-made anyway. So what makes one man-made source of morality better than another?They are all problematic, which is why I do not hold one. However, I have already presented you with a rationale as to why religious morality is more problematic than secular morality; this is a rationale you have failed to refute (your sole reply being an abstract claim about secular morality being on life support).Final StatementI asked you to substantiate your assertions. You attempted (and failed) to do so only with one tangential claim, and left the others completely unsubstantiated. You have given no evidence, no rationale. Much of your counter-argumentation has been non-responsive. You have persisted in espousing ignorant bigotry without any basis for your statements beyond personal, religious prejudice. You statements have been consistently close-minded and ill-informed. And in all of this you have utterly dodged the actual question of the debate which is whether religion is itself abusive. I am done engaging with you at this time, so you may expect no further reply after this.