Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- 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
Pro- Duh
Con-oh hell no
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.
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.
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.
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.
FINALLY!!!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Additionally, the biggest concern moderation has is that people read the debate prior to voting (overwhelming bias is second), and since the voter quoted the debaters, they have clearly put the work in.
**************************************************
Look, if you really want to discuss it do it in some other debate, you can use all your arguments and ideas in there, but this one is already on vote. You made a vote, provided a reason that’s it. There’s no need to keep fighting because your side is losing. Maybe it’s absurd to you, but we don’t care. However we WILL care in your own debate. That’s where I will agree with you.
Sounds fair?
Because I’m tired of countering all your comments.
And the fact that you don’t understand the topic makes me even more tired.
So please. Just move on
I wouldn't want to think that there is a language barrier here. Assuming that you speak english very well, i never said that the topic is about the child's perspective. I wouldn't expect you to engage in that kind of topic. I said that to argue on wether it is ethical or not, the harm inflicted on the child should be considered, and not what religion the parents belong to or how scared the parents are. And for your last comment. All you say there is thay the parents might do nothing and the child just has a weak mind. Or so you try to imply. Anyways, it is not very well articulated. Feel free to continue this dispute anytime you want.
The last comment was because you said only Dhaka included the child’s perspective which wasn’t even the main point of the debate but since you kept denying that I had any arguments about the child I had to physically show you one.
And first of all, everything was ok until IamAditaDhaka randomly got mad again and included me in his comment. Then you said in one of your comments that the topic was about the child’s perspective which makes no sense. The topic is about the parents perspective as well, don’t you see?
No.
Why are you even going against me? I thought we were through together. I was talking to your voters. Anyway, i don't understand what you mean by this last comment. Are you now going against all your religious arguments?
At least hold on to them.
“ 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.”
Here
Happy now?
Not sure why people get upset by this debate. Just let parents do this, then when their child hates them or worse, you can guilt trip them.
Morality was decided.
I got the votes.
So why don’t we all just shut up and get on with our lives.
You did not consider the child in your argument. Your argument was that it is ethical for parents to.....
That completely ignores the harm caused to the child.
What??? parent's perspective? It's like saying being a serial killer is ethical because from the serial killer's perspective he is having fun. of course morality is decided by what you inflict on the subject. not wether you like doing it or think it is right.
The topic was never about the child, it was about the parents. Obviously Dhaka included child’s perspective to his advantage, whearas I stuck the topic, which was about the parents perspective. I also did include the child in my arguments but obviously you don’t include that for the sake of Dhaka
Justifying your morals with the fact that you are an older generation and you have been taught so does not make them ethical. You also mention "squeaky-clean facts", where do you find the squeaky clean facts from 21pilots? Both opponents present facts and research in the debate. but only one of them argues about the literal moral value of this topic from the subject's perspective. Which is the child himself. And it is clear that it is Dhaka who does so.
I wonder what the church said about evolution in 1859. They do not debate against it today with the argument that the chruch is older than charles darwin.
You just replied.
But not to “shit”. But to actual logic that anyone can reply to.
I don't like replying to shit. Funny how the loudest voices in this debate are allergic to logic, obsessed with outdated manuals, and still somehow think condescension is a valid argument. But sure, tell me more about ‘ethics’ from your dusty moral archives. I’ll wait
To IamAdityaDhaka,
Your assumptions [not squeaky-clean facts, by the way] are noted. The history of your assumptions ought to be researched, because they are not all that antiquated as you may assume. But, I know that rese arch is tedious, particularly when using the internet as the vehicle because you don't necessarily know how credentialed your reading material is, and that is a vital knowledge. The APA, and its DSM on the subject of homosexuality were not accepted as fully mainstream until 2013. Oops. I'm just a little older than that, and what I consider "ethics" is likely polar opposite from your, by comparison, infantile experience. Sorry, that's the breaks of cultural exposure. Maybe next time, try to initiate your own debates and try to limit the age and cultural norms of your voters. You can try, anyway.
If you block every one who disagrees with your cultural setting, you may find this site a lonely place.
In the end, it’s just a debate. It’s not gonna change humanity buddy.
😐🤷
Sick sadists who also probably have religious parents and that's why, even in 2025, they think it's ethical for parents to change their child's homosexuality.
I appreciate your objective reasoning. But in debates like these i believe there is an ethicaly right or wrong position especially when discussing about the ethical value of the proposition. I am sure decades from now we won't have any people who discuss such topics anymore. And indeed it will be replaced with a lot of other adjectives, while the debate remains the same. Very well reasoning from your side. Even though we do not agree you obviously make a better voter than me. Can't say the same for our peers.
"But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires."
- #75 Umbrellacorp
I'd say the debate focused on the question of ethics indoctrination and intent.
Which Pro managed to limit the degree of harm of such, in their arguments.
The Homosexuality part could have been replaced with a 'number of adjectives, and I 'think the debate would have been mostly unchanged.
I think arguing 'why the activity was ethical or nonethical, would have helped 'either side. But 'neither did so much.
Pro focused on the right/expectation of parents to pass their values, and the existence of soft indoctrination.
Con focused on attacking indoctrination. . And they 'might have managed it, if they focused more on the possible harm of indoctrinating heterosexuality upon homosexual individuals.
But I view Con as wasting 'way too much time on attacking indoctrination as a concept, religion, and stating that being homosexual is fine.
. . As it stands in the debate, with neither side giving argument of Heterosexuality or Homosexuality, it's more akin to a debate about being right or left handed.
Though Con 'had a possible opportunity, if they had focused their arguments and sources more on possible harm of even minor nonacceptance.
I do have biases myself, due to my upbringing, norms of my society, and norms of my peers thus far in life. and (shrug).
. . . Still if Pro had argued Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
And Pro and Con had used the 'same arguments, I think I still would have voted Pro.
I voted against Mieky, in her debate on Being LGBTQ is a choice,
Because of the 'arguments given, just like this debate.
. . . Though I suppose if this debate title had been,
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s not being a serial killer?
I might have voted Con.
"And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025."
- #74 Umbrellacorp
I'm not sure that societies acceptance of homosexuals is 'so 'far in the past.
I'll be turning 32 this year. . Hm, I recall in the past reading older archives of debates on Debate.org, lot of them were about homosexuality, in the military, being married.
Which of course, was because of various laws in America changing within my lifetime.
I generally take a more Nature 'and Nurture view of sexuality.
Though I don't deny some people can have more predisposition than others.
May be a problem for people 'completely open to sexualities, is that neither choice is 'wrong. So they are left to defend core identity and argue against indoctrination of a neutral choice.
'Unless they focused on the backlash.
But 'everyone 'indoctrinates.
My vote: R1
Pro forfeited R1, but the participants, through Comments, agreed upon a a solution to avoid penalty to pro for the. Unintended forfeiture, so that’s a null concern.
Con’s R1 passed on an opportunity to declare his own definitions of keywords since Pro did not do so in either the Description of the debate, nor in R1 - a tactical error of Con’s own. That has far-reaching consequence. Con does attempt to argue what love is not - a curious, and ineffective approach, in keeping with the relative shyness of definition by both participants. Love is ethical, and does foster prevention and change and caring to alter perceived bad behavior. It does not control, coerce, or shame. Arguing against the former, and for the latter is the negative approach to love that Con suggests.
Con ends with another reverse argument of what love is not; but rather than admit that love does not attempt by force to be someone else, Con argues that this is the flaw in the Resolve, by parental force to be someone else. But that is not love’s definition; it is coercion’s definition.
My vote; R2
Pro argues that Con “…did not add the parents perspective. Which, I believe, is crucial in this debate.” Indeed, crucial since it is a keyword of the Resolve. Pro follows with “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.” That is entirely in keeping with the Resolve as a parent’s ethical objective. This argument is the best at targeting the pro BoP of this Resolve: “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.”
Con’s R2 declares, “My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion. Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?” No, Con ignores the pro R2 argument just cited above, which allows for religion AND secular “moral duty,” and that Pro recognizes religion’s boundary with “modern cultural norms: that may not be uniquely religious. Con then argues, “Parents can guide. They cannot rewire.” Substitute “homosexual” with “criminal” behavior, and then try to make that rebuttal stick. Con is attempting to define parental love as only with regard to the latter behavior, but not the former.
That’s a failed argument.
My vote: R3
Pro’s summary seals the deal: “He [Con] hasn’t touched it [the Reesolve]. He’s just performing. And performances don’t win debates. Arguments do.”
Con’s summary is “No. The topic is this. What has a parent's religious belief have to do with anyone's gender?” Con summarizes by attempt to change the Resolve, but, he accepted the Resolve as is by accepting the debate challenge , and that statement does not relate to the given Resolve, it is Con’s summary of his 3 rounds of failed arguments.
Your reasoning: "Pro worked the angle of how much/hard change is pursued, 'very well."
But did he argue why it is actually ethical? that's what the topic requires.
I am gonna pay you the compliment of assuming that you do not support donald trump. But it is hard to do so when your reasoning looks like this:
"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"
So, modern ethical norms= having religious parents. having religious parents is a modern ethical norm. Great!
the real reason why a parent tries to change their child's sexual orientation is also a modern ethical principle.
Very modern ethical principles.
Although i could argue 'having religious parents' is not an ethical principle. But of course i do not mean to insult your reasoning.
And changing your child's sexual orientation would've been very modern if we were in the middle ages. but unfortunately we live in 2025.
What I do as moderator isn't to evaluate who has the best logic or remove votes I personally disagree with. It's to see if each voter meets the voting standards for the site. That's it. If you want to assume that the system is rigged simply because I've noted that one voter met those standards on their third attempt and the other did not on their first, that's up to you. As for bias, literally every vote demonstrates at least some of it. If that means that they fail to consider some point at all or reject it off hand for no reason other than that bias, then there's a valid case for removal, but being biased in and of itself is not.
Sick sadists who believe it's ethical to prevent homosexuality. They think pro's argument is more practical because kids have religious parents but completely misses on the ethical sense of it. Some mods are hitting new lows everyday, they think that if somebody has voted biasedly twice, they won't the next time. To get this straight: the moment someone votes for me with clarity, stats, and a moral compass, y’all suddenly find a problem, not with their reasoning, but with their tone and sarcasm?
I’m sorry, but if you think that vote was valid and UmbrellaCorp’s wasn’t, either you didn’t read the debate, or you read it and couldn’t handle that somebody called a spade a spade. Either way, I don’t need your validation, and I sure as hell don’t need to beg for fairness from a group that clutches its pearls over the word ‘darling’ but lets blatant bias slide because it fits the narrative. Anyone who removes my votes or votes for the pro for whatever dumbass reason is just agreeing to the fact that it's ethical to tamper with someone's identity.
You can keep your rigged system. I’ll keep my backbone. Fucking dumbasses.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter clearly provides their reasoning based on points made in the debate, explaining their perception of the presented arguments and how that affects the strength of the rebuttals with specific examples. It is sufficient under the voting standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Con
>Reason for Decision:
Vote: con
Reason: Dhaka called him darling and sweetheart. How nice of him!
The reason for the vote is that trying to prevent or change your child's sexuality is factually ignorant, and also-staying on the topic- not ethical (even questioning if it is ethical is absurd). Unless you invoke religion. Which 21pilots does. Obviously because there is no other way to defend his position (or even attach some ethics to it) except for saying: Because god says so.
His arguments outside religion look like this: Parents have the fear that their child might not survive or that they might lose it all or that they will not be good parents. So it is not selfish that they are torturing a child just to feel good for themselves but it is ethical because they have fear. A very ethical argument in itself!
And Dhaka also calls him honey! Wholesome!
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to be providing a lot of their perspective on the topic and views on how each side should argue it, then provides a number of responses to Pro's points on the topic while only looking at Con's use of certain words in the debate as a show of good conduct. The voter is required to consider arguments presented by both sides and focus on those points made within the debate.
**************************************************
I don’t see the reason to fight you, I thought we already put this at rest?
Why do you keep commenting to me, saying my arguments got”folded like a napkin”.
So I don’t know what your problem is, if you’re mad, sad, jeleous, stressed, but I just don’t see the point to keep continuing this,
Keep blabbering on with your tantrum, but just letting you know it’s over and there’s no reason to keep fighting.
🤷
'Calm down baby’- said the man whose entire argument just got folded like some paper napkin. If that’s all you’ve got left, you’re not debating anymore, you’re flirting with defeat.
Also, if pointing out that your beliefs don’t belong in a logic-based debate makes you this fragile, maybe don’t bring them to one. I'm not angry, I'm just watching your argument crumble & frankly, it's adorable that you think condescension can cover for that.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mieky // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision:
i believe that pro is the winner.
To me I don't really think its as extreme as Con explained it in there agreement but thats not the only reason I voted for Pro. He had more impactful agreements. For me he won the second and third round and if Con won the first round it would be 2-1.
First Round
Con-Due to forfiet
Second Round
Pro- He countered most of Cons whole agreement while also adding some on his religion agreement.
Third Round
Pro- Con sort of gave up in the end.
>Reason for Mod Action:
While this vote is more specific than the first, it still is not sufficient. The voter can't just generally state that one side "countered most" of the other's argument or "had more impactful agreements". Voters must provide some specific analysis of the arguments made by each side in the debate and explain how this yields these larger views of how they affected the debate as whole. If a vote like this could be applied to any number of debates where one side forfeited the first round, then it's not going to meet the voting standards.
**************************************************
Calm down baby
Ughh even if umbrellacorp is saying he hasn't said that your religion is absurd, let me do it. Your religious beliefs are absurd and irrelevant in the debate.
Ok I don’t even want to argue with you, I respect your opinion let’s just get this over with.
Btw, why is this debate not labeled as 'hot'? Isn't 63 comments enough?
I did think you were talking about christianity actually. But even if it is religion in general, it is clear that you think religious beliefs count in this instance. Hense the arguments. Of course they do not. Religious beliefs come from books written in antiquity or the middle ages. Anyway, let's not turn this into a different argument. But what you do here, is the same as arguing with a geologist and telling him that the world is about 4000 years old because the bible says so. Would that count as an argument? No, and your position to this topic is not justifiable. To me it is just immoral to argue from your stance. If the majority agrees with you then you will eventually win by votes.
Ah ok. I think you misunderstood what Im trying to say, Im trying to say that I included religion because it has a big part in topics like homosexuality.
You’re saying I included one religion, which isn’t fair in your opinion, right?
Ok but you see, I didnt just include one religion, when I meant religious parents, I meant many religions that are against homosexuality.
I completely understand how you could be confused, but I hope that you understand now. ^^
Please do not turn to dishonest accusations!
I did not call religion absurd. I called the topic and your argument absurd.
And of course religious arguments do not count because not everyone has the same religion as you and some are even atheist. For your religious arguments to count, everyone must assume that your religion is true just for the sake of continuing the debate. That to me does not seem right.
Quoting you: -"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. "
-"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."
I have been referencing this statement in my vote and in the coments, it might have passed right over your head or you even forgot that you said it at all.
And in the second one you say the same thing you said to me: "No one else seem to think so" & "Telling 37% they are insecure is an excuse".
Of course the 37% are wrong. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.
And i still keep to it that the 'fear' statement is absurd.
You keep saying that religion is “absurd” (how many times have you used this word) and it doesn’t count?
You can clearly see that you just said that religious arguments doesn’t count. That’s pretty bias to me.
And what about it makes it not count, In nowhere of your comments, does it state the reason why religion doesn’t count.
All I see is your angry tantrums about my arguments. I included religion, and I gave con a choice to, because it is one of the biggest ground rules in this type of situations.
And since you didnt quote a single thing in my arguments, I have reason to believe that you dont care about how good my reason is or how hard I tried, you think that my arguments automatically wrong and always will be.
Ok see, I get what you’re trying to say, and I completely understand if you vote for con, he also did a great job, but what Im frustrated about is that you keep telling me my arguments are absurd and disgusting and immoral, but you dont include a single quote FROM my arguments to support your claim, and if you think religion has nothing to do with the topic, or its the only way I could defend myself, then you must not have even read the arguments, hence a bias vote.
Why?
Well I CLEARLY stated in the second round the first half of my whole argument was making rebuttals for con, which you completely ignored singe it was “disgusting” apparently.
If you keep replying to my messages with the fact that my arguments are bad, without any claim, how are we supposed to believe that you’re not bias?
If no one thinks that - 'bullying your child because you are afraid of being a bad parent' - is wrong, then they are wrong. My way of thinking is at least humane.
Btw, if my vote gets removed i will try to elaboraty more. But i just don't see how more you can elaborate on this outside of it being so absurd! Not even one plausible argument made! The first one was disgusting and imoral. And the rest was religion. Dhaka at least took the moral side and didn't invoke religion.
Yeah, well n one else seems to think so, so I don’t know if you’re just confused or you have a unique way of thinking my friend
I am sorry for such a harmful comment.
I understand your view, but I would still like the Mods to have a clear look at it
If you could understand, please respect that since I was one round behind, I had to craft up an argument and also make a counter for my fellow con.
So yes, to you it may seem stupid and absurd, although no one else seems to think so, you can try and include some points of pros argument that you are trying to prove your point,
I did quote a point you made. It was absurd. I know you don't understand why. Religious arguments do not count unless you make this clear in the description. In an intellectual setting, we cannot just assume that your's is the one and only true religion. I don't know how people even take this into consideration. What if dhaka started making points according to his religion? In that case that would have turned into a totaly different debate. Sort of 'which religion is true'. Where do you see the bias here? Not a single f-ing point about you? It was all about you!
Most people are homophobes.
You don't have to be offended at all. Everyone puts effort into arguments. Yours were just blatantly absurd. I don't know how a moral person can accept such arguments as a defence to this topic. And i am not even gonna comment on the religious arguments. I am surprised they even count here. As for dhaka's arguments, he makes the ones that are to be made in this case by default, especially when talking about ethics. I don't mention his in my vote because he is not the one defending in this case. It is easy for him to argue here because he has taken the moral side. You took the side of church. Of course you cannot defend it, but it's not like you even tried. Instead you turn to religion quickly. To me, you would lose this only by position. A total lack of logic. But maybe here, your religious arguments count.
Is there no freedom whatsoever in this platform? Why would you remove this vote? This clearly highlights my reason. The comments about con are sarcasm but nothing offensive.