> You're constructing a horrendous straw-man here. The distinction you're missing is the boundary between anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior. I disag

> You're constructing a horrendous straw-man here. The distinction you're missing is the boundary between anti-social behavior and pro-social behavior. I disagree. In a universe where being gay is a choice, there are many additional assumptions to be made that make that extend to effects on others besides yourself. I mentioned a few. I think the trans example is particularly salient, though uncomfortable. > No it isn't, because the argument to ban gay conversion camps is based on the fundamental principle of consent. That's why the predominant conversation is about _forced_ conversion therapy with additional important conversations about whether adults are able to consent to it. I disagree. The reason there are movements to ban them is that they're detrimental pseudo science with evidence of harm. There's plenty of alternative places to ship kids that they don't want to go to that we deal with. Religious camps and what not. In a world where being gay is 100% just a choice people make, gay conversion camps might still be ineffective, but at worst they're just trying to change someone's mind. If you want to evaluate the ethics of accepting homosexuality if its a choice, you have to first center your world view in all of the side effects that entails. Which is annoying because a lot of them are also misinformed conservative talking points. But its not just people are instead having gay sex by choice and that's the only difference. Now there is a conversation to be had over how that choice is being made across society.