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

Which remains wholly irrelevant to the debate.Accusing your opposition to the same thing they are accusing you of is not irrelevant. Prove it. Sources.http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/ 02/03/change-ethics-homosexual-sex-extramarital-affairs/ 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"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. Source 1: overallSource 2: nongonococcal urethritis, herpes genitalis, pediculosis pubis, scabies, and genital wartsSource 3: nongonococcal urethritisSource 4: syphilisSource 5: urethral Chlamydia trachomatisYou 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. 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.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. Changing a belief about a deity to one that will make you appear to be more tolerant and acceptable to the world, so that the world believes your deity is omnipotent and infallible, is counterintuitive since you had to fix a "flaw" with him in the first place. 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.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 )A. Transgender identities have been declassified as a mental illness in the DSM-V,Similar situation as liberal churches. Changing what is a disease and what isn't a disease to appease political correctness simply does not make any sense. 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 Yes, and the best treatment for someone who is suicidal is to shove them off a bridge. Problem solved.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. 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. 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.Reading the abstracts, there are again differences between what the writers considered "negative" and what I would consider "negative". Consider the conflict of interest of a psychologist saying we need to stop raising boys to be masculine because they are more likely to view seeking psychological help negatively. Other negative aspects (as far as I can tell from the abstract they were considered negative ) were "pursuit of status" and "desiring to be more muscular" "risk taking" "dominance" "self reliance" .... come on. As a woman who wants to be a man, these things are "negative" to you?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.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. Does it really come as any surprise to you that an oppressed demographic would suffer from higher rates of suicide? ok fine, Illegal immigrants vs transsexuals. 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).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? Results. The reign of secular morality is in its infancy, and already on life support.