The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Voluntary Gay-Conversion Therapy? For, or Against.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
20_lslutsky has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 513 times Debate No: 112377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Many people have foreign thoughts, strange thoughts to them about friends, or people at work/school. Some, dismiss them, only for these thoughts to resurface years later. Some, embrace it. But many don't like it, they just want them to go away, and want to be straight. Involuntary Gay-cure therapy is understandably, in some cultures, a violation of rights. But what about voluntary? What if you WANT Gay-cure therapy? I believe that if you want to change your self-image AS A HUMAN (so no animal garbage), you should be able to. This goes for Euthanasia as well, for the Mentally ill, cancerous (As in, has cancer), and Physically abnormal


First off, my good sir, your argument is flawed and took me a couple of readings to understand what you were trying to say since you worded it so poorly. I believe that you are trying to convey that getting conversion therapy is morally wrong but if a person wants to change they should have the right to by the use of conversion therapy. This would be fine, except you are comparing being gay or not straight to having a mental illness or a physical disease. People shouldn't be allowed to want to have gay conversion therapy because the conversion is not necessary, it is harmful to the patient, and it can lead to lasting physiological damage. "Changing your self-image" is perfectly okay, but a person should not feel as though they have to change who they are as a person. Gay conversion therapy itself is a terrible practice that was created out of fear of the unknown and out of fear of people that are different. It is not a medical process, it is not based on science or any scientific studies of the brain. Voluntary gay conversion therapy should not be allowed because it is damaging to the patients it claims to "heal" or "fix".
Debate Round No. 1


I apologize for the bad sentence structure, and sloppy writing, I was writing it on-the-go. I don't wish to be perceived as someone without an adequate understanding of language. I never referred to it as a disease- I was simply stating, there is a group, that after feeling a sexual or romantic connection to their own gender, wants to sever that connection. Although many consider this decision horrible, others see it as a path to god, or into their families acceptance. As long as old world values exist, just as you have the right to change your public and self-image, AS A HUMAN, to embrace your sexuality or preferred gender, you should also have the right to change your image to live as a social norm. I'm not encouraging this idea, simply stating.

Also, you had stated that they should not have changed who they are as a person, yet this is VOLUNTARY therapy, meaning- they don't want to be that person. By implying that their sexuality is fixed in place, and they cannot change it, you are, in a way, the same as the traditionalists who enforce involuntary gay-conversion therapy, in a sense that you are practically forcing them to live in denial and in struggle with their own instincts, and desires, which can be quelled, or changed, if they so desire. You, or others ensuring they don't, is forcing your own lifestyle upon them.

You also make the claim it damages its patients, which may be true in some cases, but if you stand in the way of them feeling comfortable, you are just as bad as anyone who enforces involuntary conversion therapy. It's their identity, and you, in a sense, are denying it, and/or warping it to your progressive values. I have dealt with this myself- I won't go into much detail. I was exposed to some sick people on the internet as a young child (Namely, furries), and I noticed I was a lot more intrigued by certain things than others. (I don't wish to go into detail, as that was a dark place in my life.) After years of counseling, I was able to diminish these disgusting thoughts (Not homosexual thoughts, fetish thoughts.), and feel safe with my sexual life.


While there may be a group of people who wish to change their sexual or romantic identity, because of the culture that they live in to fit the expected mold of what they think they should be. I have no problem with you going to therapy so you are no longer a furry if that is what you wish to spend your time and money with. However, having a fetish is very different to your romantic identity. Normal therapy is not the same as gay conversion therapy. Voluntary Gay Conversion Therapy should not be necessary. When someone sees the only way to their family's acceptance or as a way to God is to fundamentally change a key aspect of themselves, then it is not the individual who has the problem. The problem is a society in which the individual cannot accept themselves and feels the need to do so.

The fundamental problem with your argument is that you assume that it is okay for the volunteer to want to change themselves. It is fine to change yourself, as long as you are not hurting anyone, INCLUDING YOURSELF. The problem is that conversion therapy hurts the patients.

No, I am not just as bad as someone who enforces conversion therapy. I am not forcing a person to hate themselves, I am not forcing someone to live as a person who they are not. I am not standing in the way of someone being comfortable, I am standing in the way of serious effects on the mind. I am not forcing my beliefs on others by keeping others safe from mental damage. I am against conversion therapy because it is severely damaging to the individual. This is backed by world Health Officials, as well. "The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, has stated that these practices "lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people""(2017 NCL).

Gay Conversion Therapy shouldn't be allowed because it is a horrible practice that has "little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation"(American Academy of Pediatrics). Also "Research shows that lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were more than eight times more likely to report having attempted suicide"(American Academy of Pediatrics). The problem is not in the patients, it is in the environment around them.
Debate Round No. 2


You continue to disregard the KEY word in the argument here. VOLUNTARY. "When someone sees the only way to their family's acceptance or as a way to God is to fundamentally change a key aspect of themselves, then it is not the individual who has the problem. The problem is a society in which the individual cannot accept themselves and feels the need to do so." You make the argument they see the only possible way is to change a key aspect of themselves, yet, this still implies they WANT it. If you are comfortable with being LGBT+ then stay that way, I have always referred to those that feel this way, but do not want to be this way. Even then, they clearly do not want their current state of being and want to change it, and you are essentially encouraging them to develop conditions that, again, they simply don't desire.

"The problem is not in the patients, it is in the environment around them." And are they wrong for wanting to live comfortably, without having to fight for their freedoms? Yes, the people around them may be biased, and discriminatory, yet, they still WANT this therapy. This is the same arguement, in principle, as many of this time. "Smoking ban" "Junk food in vending machines at school", others as well. Where the side that wants these things to remain, (My side) is promoting free choice and personal responsibility. If these practices harm the individual, yet, they choose to do this, it was their choice. People smoke, and they made the concious choice before addiction to smoke. I've had a cigarrette, and I've never had one since. You can argue this is a different manner, but it's the same as many. Freedom of choice. People come to this country because of our superior system, and western values. They flee from societies that have been ruined by exessive old world values (Traditionalism, Far right, Theocracy) as ones ruined by new world values (Progressivism, Socialism, Communism).

We should always allow people to pursue what they want, so long as it doesnt harm others. That is what makes our country great, and banning things, simply lowers stability, and encourages illegal, underground practice that will be worse in all aspects than the legal one. I don't believe we should force anyone to do anything, I just believe we should have a choice. You can choose to do moral things, immoral things, healthy things, unhealthy, etc. as long as it's legal.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 20_lslutsky 3 years ago
You seem to have forgotten that freedom of choice can be suspended in order to protect yourself and others. Smoking is more difficult to do now that it has been studied and we now know how harmful it is. It should be the same way with conversion therapy. Yes, if a person VOLUNTEERS to change themselves, they have the right to do so. However, not when a change will harm themselves in the process. You are correct, this is the same argument on prohibiting sugary sodas or banning smoking. And the reason people ban these things is to protect.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.