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

True, but it illustrates how liberals indoctrinate their children into their worldview as well, even when it directly harms them.Which remains wholly irrelevant to the debate.POSSIBLY, but teaching that homosexuality is a sin can discourage them from becoming an active homosexualProve it. Sources.Give it a rest, being an active homosexual is only possible by either deluding or discarding any faith in an Abrahamic religion.Prove it. Sources.In the west, religion is what discourages people from promiscuity.Prove it. Sources. 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... Prove it. Sources. Since discrimination has lessened, so have the rates of HIV/AIDS transmission among homosexuals. In fact, "the epidemic has become increasingly an epidemic of non-white populations, of women, and of heterosexuals and injecting drug users" and "the largest proportional increase has occurred in cases attributed to heterosexual transmission" (source).sourceSource 1: overallSource 2: nongonococcal urethritis, herpes genitalis, pediculosis pubis, scabies, and genital warts Source 3: nongonococcal urethritisSource 4: syphilis Source 5: urethral Chlamydia trachomatisI understand it is a Fallacy (No true Scotsman), but you can generally assume I'm excluding liberal Christians when I say "Christians" No, actually, I cannot. That being established, however, does not legitimize the apparent argument you are making that religion is non-abusive because it protects children from becoming homosexuals (because not all religion condemns homosexuality). You missed the point, and subsequently you have lost it as well.I was not talking about homosexuals. I was talking about heterosexuals.Fine. My first point stand here to then: so what? Religion does not uniquely solve for this, and it does not change the rest of the abusive nature of religion at all even if it did....and infidelity, yes I agree. I'm not supporting domestic violence, I'm addressing an apathy towards fatherhood. Again, religion is not a unique solution to this if it is a solution at all. Even if it were a solution, this does not change the rest of its abusive nature.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.A. Transgender identities have been declassified as a mental illness in the DSM-V, having been replaced with "gender dysphoria" which references the state of discomfort that may be associated with this identity. By the DSM's own admission, the only reason that gender dysphoria is even on the books is to retain access to medical resources for transgender persons who have historically been shut out of all forms of medical treatment (not just transitional services).B. Even among those who consider transgenderism to be a mental illness, the most effective medical treatment has consistently been identified as supporting the person through transition (not denying them it). There has been no success is eliminating dysphoria through therapy or medication, but aligning the physical self with the cognitive self has been proven to work.C. I am transgender. I was designated female at birth and was raised to be a woman, but this did not prevent me from later identifying as a man. I am pursuing transition, not because I hate my body but because that is the only way I can get other people to treat me as the man I am. If I could not change my body, if society could accept that I am a man with a female body, I would not need to pursue transition. As it is, failing to do so leads not just to invalidation of my identity but jeopardizes my career and places my life and well-being in serious risk on a regular basis. Most of that danger comes from conservative religious people.A. explain how B. Your link didn't work C. 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.A. See B.B. Apologies. I cannot find the original article any longer but here are additional sources: #1 & #2 & #3. I recognize that two are abstracts, but they do include citations to additional pertinent research.I would also remind you that while I have at least made effort at procuring evidence in my counter claim you have yet to provide any for your initial claim.C. The difference between a California study and the Bible is that the study has been peer-reviewed and includes a methodology which can be understood and critiqued, whereas the Bible makes no gesture towards any evidential standard at all. Maybe you should look up the suicide rates of housewives vs transsexuals.I do not have to. As a transgender person I am already distinctly aware in a way you could not possibly be. Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the actual reasons for that increased prevalence: foremost among them being discrimination. Does it really come as any surprise to you that an oppressed demographic would suffer from higher rates of suicide? Truly? Please.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.I do not hold a personal morality myself, and do not actually see things in terms of good and bad as you do. That said, I think any secular source is innately better than a theistic source because it has a greater capacity for incorporating critical thought (whereas this attribute is anathema to religion).Baseline: You have presented no evidence for any of your many assertions, yet make repeated calls for more substantiation of my counter claims; in truth, the primary burden of proof is upon you and you have utterly failed to support it. Even if everything you have claimed were true, and even if you could then prove that religion is the only way to address those issues, you would still not have disproved that religion can also be a form of child abuse on account of its other attributes (e.g. indoctrination, dogma, superstition, etc.). Present proof and a coherent argument, or I am disinclined to persist in listening to your espousal of uniformed and frankly intolerant beliefs.