Instigator / Pro

21Pilots

1487

rating

debates

50.0%

won

Topic

#6320

Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 6 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

21Pilots

Tags

Homosexuals

Parents

Childhood

Parameters

Publication date: 06.21.2025 02:29AM
Last updated date: 07.08.2025 02:05PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: One day
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Winner selection
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

IamAdityaDhaka

1500

rating

debates

40.0%

won

Description

Pro- Duh
Con-oh hell no

Round 1

21Pilots

06.22.2025 04:23AM

Pro

Forfeited

IamAdityaDhaka

06.22.2025 12:29PM

Con

(Note: read comment #9)

You know, I often hear people say, “It’s out of love.”

Oh, darling—love doesn’t come with conversion therapy.

Love doesn’t say, “You’re broken.”

And it sure as hell doesn’t come with the audacity of thinking you can edit a soul.

Let’s get one thing straight here—your child’s sexuality is not a parental DIY project.

It is not ethical—not even remotely ethical—for parents to try to “prevent” or “change” their child’s homosexuality. End of story. Because what you're really doing is forcing conformity, not fostering care.

You are not “protecting” the child. You are protecting your own discomfort- your own insecurity. And if you think that’s parenting, then let me introduce you to a little word called harm.

Studies by the American Psychological Association and UNICEF have consistently shown that attempts to change a child’s sexuality—whether through control, coercion, or the silence of shame—lead to increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide.

You cannot say “I love you” in one breath and crush their identity in the next.

And what is this fear anyway? That your child won’t get married? That society will whisper? Let them whisper. Let them choke on their whispering. Because ethics is not about catering to social comfort—it’s about standing up for human dignity.

And NO parent has the moral right to bulldoze their child’s truth just to build their fantasy of a “perfect” son or daughter.

This is not tradition. This is not culture. This is emotional violence dressed in family values.

So, let me end with this:

You cannot love someone and simultaneously wish them into someone else.

And if a parent truly wants to raise a child with ethics, start by respecting the one thing no one else can ever own—their identity.

O Aditya? No. O Morality. O Constitution. O Conscience.

Let it sink in. Thank you!

Round 2

21Pilots

06.23.2025 11:20AM

Pro

Thank you IamAdityaDhaka for a challenging and compelling debate!

Before I begin, if you haven’t read the comments, I unfortunately forfeited due to lack of time, which wasn’t measured properly.

Please read the comments for more information.

Both me and IamAdityaDhaka agreed not to count the first forfeiture for future voting. Please note that.

I will first present a rebuttal for con’s argument. Then, I will present my own argument.

With all that said, I will start with the rebuttal:

Con has presented a strong argument, but also made one big mistake: he did not add the parents perspective. Which, I believe, is crucial in this debate.

, “It’s out of love.”
Oh, darling—love doesn’t come with conversion therapy.
Love doesn’t say, “You’re broken.”

I agree with you, coercive conversation therapy is harmful and overall unethical. Ok but here’s the thing: not every parents who struggle with their child’s gender/identity engages in conversation therapy. They’re merely trying to protect their long preserved culture/religion.

How would you feel if everything that you did in your routine is suddenly forever changed? If I was you, I would try to bring it back. That’s exactly what this situation is like. This isn’t a monster we’re talking about, its called normal human fear.

Let’s get one thing straight here—your child’s sexuality is not a parental DIY project.

Of course its not. But parenting has always involved shaping values, beliefs and behaviour in many aspects of a child. Like how a child eats, speaks or sleeps. We must remember that the line between guidance, and control exists. And it must be drawn carefully. Labelling a parents discomfort or hesitation as “parental DIY project” just oversimplifies the entire process of upbringing.

You are not “protecting” the child. You are protecting your own discomfort- your own insecurity. And if you think that’s parenting, then let me introduce you to a little word called harm.

Let me introduce you a little word called fear. Now, many parents experience fear from their child every single day. And obviously we can’t stop some things from happening, but they still try to protect whats left. Fear that they will lose it all. Fear that their child won’t make it out alive. Fear that they will never be good parents. According to the Pew Research Centre (2022), 37% of Americans believe same Ge gender relationships are wrong, 46% of people don’t even care, which means that they haven’t even experienced this situation. Now I don’t know if your goal is to shame them into silence, or bring them to understanding, but calling the 37% of people insecure is just a excuse to avoid meaningful engagement.

Studies by the American Psychological Association and UNICEF have consistently shown that attempts to change a child’s sexuality—whether through control, coercion, or the silence of shame—lead to increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide.

Ok but can we also consider the child themselves. Not all humans have the same way of thinking. Which is exactly why mainstream psychology condemns conversation therapy. The parent’s might not have even disagreed, they might be just a little bit against it, and yet, the child might have a weak state of mind, hence thinking of suicide. I agree that parents could go softer, but fear may turn them onto the wrong direction. In fact, a JAMA Pediatrics (2021) study found that LGBTQ youth who had at least one adult who respected their identity were 40% less likely to attempt suicide. That respect doesn’t have to mean full agreement. It means presence, protection, and patience.

You cannot say “I love you” in one breath and crush their identity in the next.

Very powerful words. However, love does not always mean accepting, if we accepted every single thing thats put in front of us, well, that, in my opinion, isn't how love works. Love involves wrestling with the truth, love also involves understanding and love can also involve mistakes. The truth is, parents may genuinely believe their child’s identity is spiritually or dangerous, not out of hate, but through their deepest understanding of whats right. If you are telling them to abandon their belief instantly, you’re basically asking them to abandon their own identity.

Let’s look at the harsh reality, in the end, someone has to give in to the others side. This session takes somewhat months, even years to fully move on. Some side with their parents some parents side with their child. And in my next argument I will show you why parents are the right people to side with.

Argument

Now I will start the next argument for round 2 which will be heavily based on religion.

Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion.

Religious frameworks don’t revolve around self-expression or modern cultural norms. They revolve around obedience to divine law. If a parent genuinely believes that homosexual behavior is sinful and puts their child at risk spiritually — then acting to prevent that behavior isn’t hatred, it’s moral duty.

Now let’s be precise: this doesn’t justify abusive behavior, forced conversion therapy, or emotional manipulation. Those are separate moral failures. But the act of trying to influence or guide a child away from homosexuality, through religious teaching or personal example, is ethically consistent within their belief system.

We allow parents to shape their children’s values all the time. A secular parent might teach that sexuality is fluid and self-defined. A religious parent might teach that sexuality has moral boundaries. The difference in worldview doesn’t make one ethical and the other unethical. What matters is whether the parent is acting in sincere pursuit of what they believe is good — and within that, religious parents are operating from a well-defined, internally consistent moral code.

So if we’re judging this from a secular lens only, we dismiss half the picture. But if we take the religious worldview seriously — which we must in any fair ethical discussion — then yes, it is ethical for a parent to attempt to guide, prevent, or discourage homosexual behavior in their child, as long as it’s done through conviction, not coercion.

IamAdityaDhaka

06.23.2025 01:59PM

Con

My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion.

Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?

Sweetheart, this is a debate, not a religious sermon. And if you’re playing God, then I’m here to bring the thunder.

You said I have to “rebut using religion”?

Excuse me? Trying to write my argument for me? That’s rich- especially coming from someone who spent half their round romanticizing fear and the other half soft-launching spiritual gaslighting.

Parent's fear does not excuse harm. You don’t get to traumatize your child and then cry “but I was scared” or “I wanted everything to be normal”. That’s not parenting. That’s cowardice hiding behind culture.

“Parents shape beliefs like how a child eats, speaks or sleeps.”

Yes, they do. But there's a slight difference between broccoli and bisexuality.

You can encourage bedtime routines.

You cannot “encourage” heterosexuality like it’s an after-school hobby.

This is not chess club, this is someone’s identity.

Parents can guide. They cannot rewire.

“Love means wrestling with the truth.”

Sure. But if your version of “love” means treating your child like a theological crime scene, then that’s not love. That’s emotional conversion therapy with lipstick on it.

And by the way, just because you wrestle with something doesn’t mean you pin your kid to the mat and call it moral clarity.

“Respect doesn’t mean full agreement.”

Cute sentence. Let’s flip it.

Would you respect your child’s heterosexuality if they were raised in a pro-LGBTQ household and wanted to become a celibate monk? Would you tell a straight teen “Hey, I disagree with your orientation, but I respect you”?

No. You wouldn’t. Because we all know this isn’t about disagreement. It’s about discomfort dressed up as discipline.

“Religion gives moral consistency.”

Oh honey. Consistency is not the same as correctness.

Plenty of things were once morally consistent—slavery, caste discrimination, child marriage.

Religion is not a free pass to moral immunity. You don’t get to throw out ethics and say “God said so.”

In fact, if your religion tells you to make your child feel ashamed for who they are, maybe it’s time to ask why you’ve made fear your God and bigotry your Bible.

“It’s not hatred—it’s moral duty.”

Trying to erase someone’s identity is not “moral duty.”

It’s psychological violence in parental packaging.

And don’t come at me with “Well, if done without coercion, it’s okay.”

Please. That’s like saying, “I gently told my child they were a disappointment.”

Just because you didn’t shout doesn’t mean you didn’t destroy.

And finally, to your line:

“If you are telling them [parents] to abandon their belief instantly, you’re basically asking them to abandon their own identity.”

No. We are asking them to do what every decent parent is expected to do:

Put their child’s life, safety, and mental well-being above their own biases.

That is not abandonment. That is maturity. That is parenthood.

And if your beliefs cannot coexist with your own child’s existence—maybe it’s not the child who needs changing.

Parents are not moral monarchs.

They are stewards. Guardians. Grown-ups.

And the moment they start using their child’s identity as a battlefield for their insecurities or scripture-based panic—

They lose the right to call that parenting.

So no, it is not ethical to try and change your child’s sexuality. It is not love. It is not duty. It is delusion.

And if your argument depends on fear, fantasy, and forced faith—then don’t expect me to treat it like it came from a place of reason. This isn’t just a rebuttal.

This is a reminder: Your child was never the problem. Your discomfort was.

MY ARGUMENT #2:

The topic asks whether it is ethical for parents to try to “change” or “prevent” their child’s homosexuality. The right answer is a clear no. A parent may have personal, cultural, or religious discomfort, but that does not give them the ethical right to interfere with a core, unchangeable part of their child’s identity. Just because a parent is uncomfortable does not mean the child must be “fixed.” Ethical parenting is based on support, not control. Attempting to change a child’s sexuality, no matter the method, is a violation of that principle.

In every case—whether it’s fear, tradition, belief, or concern—a parent trying to change their child’s sexuality is neither effective, ethical, nor justified. It leads to trauma, it doesn’t succeed, and it treats the child’s identity as a problem to fix rather than a person to love. That is not parenting. That is control.

Let’s talk ethics. Parents are supposed to protect, not ‘fix’ their children. Trying to change a child’s sexuality isn’t guidance — it’s control. It's forcing shame where there should be pride, and science backs this up. Studies show that attempts to change someone’s sexuality — often under the disguise of 'therapy' — lead to anxiety, depression, and even suicide. So let’s call it what it is: psychological harm masked as parenting.

And no, 'intentions' don’t justify actions. Even if parents say it’s out of love, love that demands a child erase who they are isn’t love — it’s ego. It’s about the parent’s discomfort, not the child’s wellbeing.

Trying to ‘change’ someone’s identity isn’t just unethical — it’s dangerous.

I can say it's unethical, and it is. You can keep on saying that parents do it out of love, this religion says that about that, parents do it out love, out of the feeling of everything being normal again. There's no end to this. Parents who want everything to be normal again and think that changing their child's homosexuality will do it, need to adapt to the new normal.

You can not ask me to respond to your arguments on the basis of religion or on the basis of this or that. It's on me to decide how I want to reply or on what grounds I want to reply. Get over it.
What has religion has to do with someone deciding their gender? Homosexuality is one's personal choice, no religion, no parent, no friend, no government or anything can force them into changing it. It's NOT ethical. Loud and clear.

Thank you.

Round 3

21Pilots

06.24.2025 01:08PM

Pro

My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion.
Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?
Sweetheart, this is a debate, not a religious sermon. And if you’re playing God, then I’m here to bring the thunder.

You said I have to “rebut using religion”?
Excuse me? Trying to write my argument for me? That’s rich- especially coming from someone who spent half their round romanticizing fear and the other half soft-launching spiritual gaslighting.

Ok sir let me clear something up. I never said Con ‘must’ use religion. I said this round will focus on religion because it’s one of the most central, real-world reasons parents try to change their child’s sexuality. If you want to debate the ethics of the issue seriously, you can’t just ignore religion because it’s inconvenient. That’s not me controlling the round. That’s me keeping it grounded in reality.

Now, Con can make all the thunder and lightning jokes he wants. He can call me ‘sweetheart’ and toss out dramatic metaphors. But none of that answers the actual question: Is it ethical for religious parents who truly believe they are doing the right thing to guide their child away from homosexuality?

He hasn’t touched it. He’s just performing. And performances don’t win debates. Arguments do.

I really don’t understand that, I really dont. Im usually not like this in debates, but if con acts like th, Im not standing by it.

Parent's fear does not excuse harm. You don’t get to traumatize your child and then cry “but I was scared” or “I wanted everything to be normal”. That’s not parenting. That’s cowardice hiding behind culture.

Let’s get something straight: we’re not talking about fear. We’re talking about faith. You’re acting like every religious parent is panicking and projecting their anxiety onto their kid. No many are acting calmly, deliberately, and out of deep, moral conviction. They don’t see homosexuality as “identity” they see it as moral behavior. That’s not fear that’s belief. And in ethics, belief matters.

You can’t ‘encourage’ heterosexuality like it’s an after-school hobby. This is not chess club, this is someone’s identity.

That’s just rhetoric. No one is treating sexuality like it’s a chess club. But guess what? The world encourages sexuality all the time. Whether it’s LGBTQ clubs at school or pride ads on TikTok, society absolutely encourages certain views. The difference is you’re fine with it when it matches your beliefs. But the moment a parent teaches something different, suddenly it’s “harm”? That’s not ethics. That’s hypocrisy.

If your version of love makes your child feel like a theological crime scene, it’s not love.

False. Real love doesn’t always feel good. Sometimes it challenges you. A parent saying, “I love you, but I don’t agree with everything you do,” isn’t abuse — that’s called boundaries. We accept this in every other area: drugs, crime, lying. But when it comes to sexuality, apparently the rules change?

Trying to change someone’s identity is psychological violence.

Woah buddy slow down. First of all, religious parents don’t believe identity is something you invent they believe it’s something you receive from God. So trying to “change” identity? No they’re trying to align it with what they believe is true. You don’t have to like that but that doesn’t make it violence. Unless we’re saying disagreeing with someone is now abuse? That’s not progressive, that’s just fragile.

Religion isn’t a free pass to moral immunity.

And no one asked for one. But religion is a legitimate moral framework. And your argument doesn’t get to dominate the conversation just because it yells louder. Ethics isn’t about which side is louder. it’s about whether people can live according to their conscience. And the moment you tell parents they’re “unethical” for disagreeing with you you’ve crossed into moral authoritarianism.

If your beliefs can’t coexist with your child’s existence, maybe it’s not the child who needs changing.

That’s a cute soundbite. But again you’re twisting belief into hate. Religious parents can absolutely coexist with their LGBTQ+ kids. They do it every day. They just don’t celebrate something they believe is wrong. That’s not erasure. That’s called honest parenting. You want full approval, not just tolerance. And that’s not ethical that’s entitlement.

Look, I’m not here to preach. I’m not here to pretend every religious parent gets it right. But let’s be honest this debate isn’t about extremists or abuse cases.

It’s about whether it’s ethical for parents especially religious ones to try and prevent their child from being homosexual. And here’s the truth: yes, it can be ethical.

Because belief doesn’t stop being valid just because it’s unpopular.

Religious parents aren’t evil. They’re not villains in some movie.

Most of them are trying to raise their kids the best way they know how with the values they believe are right. They’re not trying to erase their child. They’re trying to protect them from what they genuinely believe is wrong spiritually, morally, eternally.

And you don’t have to agree with that belief.

But calling it unethical? That’s a stretch.

Because here’s the thing: Everyone teaches their kids something. Some parents teach, “Be whoever you want.” Others teach, “Follow what God says is right.”

You can’t say one is loving and the other is abuse just because you don’t like it.

Let’s stop pretending this is black and white.There is grey and we know it. Most parents aren’t shouting at their kids or forcing them into camps. They’re sitting at the dinner table, struggling to balance love and faith. They’re trying to say, “I love you but I can’t lie to you about what I believe.”

That isn’t hate. That isn’t harm. That’s what real parenting looks like sometimes messy, painful, but rooted in truth.

And in an ethical society, we don’t punish people for disagreeing respectfully.

So no it is not automatically unethical for a parent to say: “I believe differently, and I want to guide you the way I believe is right.” That’s not brainwashing. That’s not violence. That’s what every parent does religious or not.

You don’t have to like it.

But if you want to call it unethical, you better bring more than just emotion and metaphors. Because values matter. Belief matters. Parenting matters. And the moment we act like only one kind of love is valid We stop debating ethics. We start pushing ideology.

Thank you

And thank you con for participating on this debate.

IamAdityaDhaka

06.24.2025 02:05PM

Con

Apologies if you find my argument too short or blunt.

Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?

No. The topic is this. What has a parent's religious belief have to do with anyone's gender? The Con has mistaken religion for ethics. He talks about religion is this, religious parents believe this. I ask all of you: What has religion have to do with anyone's homosexuality. It's their personal choice.

People in comments are saying: why are we debating this in 21st century of course it is not ethical. One person is saying that they were harassed by their parents related to their homosexuality. Even after all of this, even after reading about how kids suicide when put under pressure by their parents for changing their homosexuality. People die because of their parent's or (whatever religious parents con is talking about) religious beliefs. I ask you: is it right or wrong for one to die because someone's religious beliefs say that it's not right to choose your own gender?

People die because of their parents trying to change their homosexuality. People go into depression and anxiety. They become a victim to violence and still we are arguing if it's ethical or not. What in the world? It's unethical. End of story.

Nobody's religious beliefs have nothing to do with anybody's religion.

A person, with even an inch of humanity, will not argue this being ethical. But alas!

Have a good one!

Casey_Risk

06.21.2025 02:51AM

To be clear, you intend to take the Pro position?

jonrohith

07.03.2025 02:50AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Both are out of topics, They made this debate more more wider. This might be a simple debate with 2 rounds. They are including several topics that made hard to read this debate, This is a failed debate.

Barney

07.02.2025 11:50PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

I feel just a little dirty doing this, since I am no homophobe...

Without a clear definition for ethical provided, we're stuck with the implicit ones, and to that pro's made sense. Ethics are defined by ones culture, and obeying them lets one sleep peacefully at night. It's intuitive, it makes sense, and parents are just trying to do right even if everyone agrees they're misguided.

Con's case on the other hand relied on outrage, and sound bites. He or she actively tried to twist pro's stance into one of religion commandments, to dismiss the nuance of it. I don't think they wholly miss the mark with focus on harms, but that's not mutually exclusive with pro's framework of trying to do good (and pro being the one with BoP, it's important to stop said framework).

A huge issue throughout the debate was legibility. Whole paragraphs being bolded for example, made it needlessly hard to read; a few key words or headings is how to use that. I would have liked to see section headings of course, to follow points easily between rounds and opponents.

fauxlaw

06.29.2025 06:13PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Considering that Pro is the initiator of this debate, he would have done the debte a huge favor by defining the key words of the Resolution ["ethical," "parent,s" "prevent," "change," "child's homosexuality"] in this citation of it: “Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?” By doing so, he prevents Con from making up his own definitions to suit his argument. Further, putting those definitions in the Description, which was cryptically short, would allow the opponent to review and accept the debate with eyes open and being flawed to then try to change definitions. As it was, Con was allowed to, and did create his own definitions to suit his argument; this was, therefore, a Pro tactical mistake, but, in the end, it was argumentation that was the tale of this debate.
On the whole, I find Pro’s argumentation culturally, and even civilizatiionally consistent with the meaning of “ethics:” pertaining to principles of morality, pertaining to concepts of right and wrong behavior. There is no mention of religion in that definition, yet it can encompass both religious and secular behavioral ideals. On the basis of my vote on specific round by round [see Comments R1, R2, R3] I award the vole to Pro.

Umbrellacorp

06.29.2025 04:12PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

Objectively
Con debates rationaly and also provides sources to defend his position: "Studies by the American Psychological Association and UNICEF have consistently shown that attempts to change a child’s sexuality—whether through control, coercion, or the silence of shame—lead to increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide."
"Parents are not moral monarchs.
They are stewards. Guardians. Grown-ups.
And the moment they start using their child’s identity as a battlefield for their insecurities or scripture-based panic—
They lose the right to call that parenting."
"And no, 'intentions' don’t justify actions. Even if parents say it’s out of love, love that demands a child erase who they are isn’t love — it’s ego. It’s about the parent’s discomfort, not the child’s wellbeing." Arguments according to the topic which is centered around ethics.

Whereas Pro uses pseudoethical arguments and also the 'popular opinion' to defend his stance: "Let me introduce you a little word called fear. Now, many parents experience fear from their child every single day. And obviously we can’t stop some things from happening, but they still try to protect whats left. Fear that they will lose it all. Fear that their child won’t make it out alive. Fear that they will never be good parents. According to the Pew Research Centre (2022), 37% of Americans believe same Ge gender relationships are wrong, 46% of people don’t even care, which means that they haven’t even experienced this situation. Now I don’t know if your goal is to shame them into silence, or bring them to understanding, but calling the 37% of people insecure is just a excuse to avoid meaningful engagement."
Both of which are weakness features in a debater perspective.
Next he switches to religious arguments which are unjust in the debate context because everyone must assume that his religion is true just for the sake of continuing the debate.
Quoting Pro: "Now I will start the next argument for round 2 which will be heavily based on religion.
Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion."
Dictations are to be made in the description not during the debate, changing the whole direction of the conversation.

Mieky

06.29.2025 05:31AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

this is my last time trying man

Winner: Pro
My Reason is, Pro’s arguments are more aligned with modern ethical principles like having religious parents and the real reason why a parent attempts to change their child's sexual identity. Pro successfully showed that religious beliefs can be justified and keeps the focus on the well-being of the child, which is the central issue in the debate.

This debate was NOT one sided though, the reason I have not voted for Con is that his points were always the same, that if a parent is even trying to change there child sexuality in any way shape or form then there evil and are causing harm to the child. Cons round 2 debate is what sealed the deal for me really. He took all of Pros points and stretched them into something he didnt even say and he did it multiple times. I don't think con gets it but just because a parent wants to change there kids sexual identity doesn't mean that they will physically harm there kid as Con says in multiple of his rebuttals.

Example : Con said "But if your version of “love” means treating your child like a theological crime scene, then that’s not love. That’s emotional conversion therapy with lipstick on it."
All pro said was “Love means wrestling with the truth.” He takes pros points and made it into something it completely was not.

Lemming

06.24.2025 11:36PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

RFV
(See Comments #29 and #28 of this debate, for a lengthier RFV)

Pro worked the angle of how much/hard change is pursued, 'very well.
And managed to counter many of Cons arguments such as it still causing damage, or the value of individuality.

Con I think made errors, by not more pursuing their sources/citations of pushback damage.
As well as neglecting making arguments of why/what makes Individuality and Homosexuality Good or Neutral values.