Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Fallacy 1: Indicating other instances of potential child abuse does not prove that forcing a child to be religious is not child abuse as well.True, but it illustrates how liberals indoctrinate their children into their worldview as well, even when it directly harms them. Fallacy 2: Teaching respect and acceptance to children does not predispose them to be homosexual.POSSIBLY, but teaching that homosexuality is a sin can discourage them from becoming an active homosexualFallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.Give it a rest, being an active homosexual is only possible by either deluding or discarding any faith in an Abrahamic religion. In the west, religion is what discourages people from promiscuity. Being a homosexual DOES increase your risk of HIV, even if it is a secondary effect. It has nothing to do with stigma, sex education, or healthcare discrimination, which have been pretty much eliminated in the last 20-30 years... If there was even the slightest indication removal of those factors decreases the infection rate among homosexuals, the entire country would erupt in a super volcano of academic papers shoving it in everyone's face. 5 seconds on google shows homosexuals in Europe face similar infection rates as the US. Fallacy 4: Transmission rates for other STIs are actually higher in heterosexual populations than in homosexual populations. Picking one STI to defend your point provides an incomplete picture.sourceFallacy 5: Not all religious indoctrination condemns homosexuality. Religious persons can force their child into religious practice/belief while also teaching acceptance of homosexuality.I understand it is a Fallacy (No true Scotsman), but you can generally assume I'm excluding liberal Christians when I say "Christians" Fallacy 6:I was not talking about homosexuals. I was talking about heterosexuals.Fallacy 7: Divorce can be damaging to children, however in some contexts divorce can actually be the better choice for a child. Examples include instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic unrest from bad marriages....and infidelity, yes I agree. I'm not supporting domestic violence, I'm addressing an apathy towards fatherhood. Fallacy 8: Whether you are referencing "traditional" gender roles or transgender identities, you have no basis for your claim.Yes I do, It is a disease. Denying medical treatment for a disease is abusive. Mutilating someone's body, literally selling them false hope that they can change genders, is abuse. Fallacy 9: Actually, raising children to conform to "traditional" gender roles is harmful (not the other way around). For instance.A. explain howB. Your link didn't workC. You can pretty well assume I'm not going to see things your way because of an article from a California university, just like I know full well you are not going to see things my way if I just trow Bible verses at you all day. I have more respect for peer reviewed journals, but only if they contain statistics that actually support what you are trying to say. Maybe you should look up the suicide rates of housewives vs transsexuals. Fallacy 10: Religion is not the only source (nor even the best source) for raising a child with respect for life, decency, and honor.Another instance where you and I will just disagree on what is good and what is bad, but just for fun, why don't you go ahead and tell me what that better source is.