LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[Marokai Backbeat]

This bill has my support. These institutions can hurt a person for the rest of their lives, and engage in plenty of questionable and downright damaging tactics to "repair" someone. Even if going to one of these institutions is a "choice."

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

I assumed that someone would take this to court as well, should it pass. My point is that the Senate earlier passed at least one piece of unconstitutional legislation, and passed it even though they knew it had dubious constitutionality, and I don't want some of the people who openly supported such dubious and later proven unconstitutional actions to lecture the rest of us on constitutionality.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a good bill. It has my full support.

Despite being unconstitutional?

The courts can rule on that. But these institutions are despicable, immoral and emotionally damaging, and frankly the idea that most people who go to these institutions have a "choice" in doing so is ridiculous.

It doesn't mean the Senate should willfully pass legislation that violates the Constitution.

Uh, you've done that plenty of times. Game Moderator removal, anyone?

Wasn't blatantly unconstitutional and required the court to clarify the matter. There was actually a precedent that implied that it was constitutional.

This is simply unconstitutional and irresponsible governance. In theory I agree, but I can't vote for something that disregards the pillars of our game. I have set out what I would like to see done to make this bill both constitutional and effective.

     Furthermore, the Game Moderator removal bill carried with it certainty of being immediately challenged in court. Voting for a bad bill is much more defensible when it is guaranteed to have to face the test of constitutionality as soon as it is passed.

I assumed that someone would take this to court as well, should it pass. My point is that the Senate earlier passed at least one piece of unconstitutional legislation, and passed it even though they knew it had dubious constitutionality, and I don't want some of the people who openly supported such dubious and later proven unconstitutional actions to lecture the rest of us on constitutionality.

The GM bill was a legitimate question for the court. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Matter of opinion, Senator. Many, including myself by the end, also thought your previous actions were "blatantly unconstitutional."

[Marokai Backbeat]

Though the amendment will probably pass, I object and want a vote on it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This bill is disgusting, if people want to better themseleves why should they be denied?  What are we going to ban next, rehab clinics for alcoholics?

That you would even compare the two makes me want to spit on you if I ever ran into you in person.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Since all these places don't work, they're fraudulent and thereby illegal.

What works is relative, just as what is the "pursuit of happiness" is relative. We think it is misguided, but some people have those feelings and seek a way to stop having them. They believe these places help. Who are we to stop them?

So you think it's fine for people to "willingly" submit themselves to deceptive, counter productive, and physically and psychologically harmful procedures?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Andrew ought to be given a stiff drink before he reads the above post.

I think it's one of the saddest posts I've read on the forum in quite a long time.

Indeed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

Just wait, the Southeast will claim they don't have to follow the bill, should it pass, because they don't feel like it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye


I believe the "life, liberty, and the pursuit" provision would make this unconstitutional as is currently written. While the argument can (and should) be made that minors do not always know what is best for them and what makes them happy, who are we to tell people what makes them happy and what is harmful. They have the right to choose for themselves, otherwise you open the door to legislation banning abortion clinics.

EDIT: And please no straw men on this. The current bill could lead to conservatives attempting to pass legislation that says that, due to the psychological impact abortion can have on people, clinics should be closed. This bill opens the door to further government meddling in a person's right to privacy and choice.

Uh, no? What crooked connection does shutting down harmful and fraudulent businesses have with shutting down abortion clinics because they cause stress? We want to shut these people down because they claim to do something that's a biological impossibility, through psychologically and physically harmful means. (Downright brainwashing.)

There is no comparison to shutting down abortion clinics. Though some argument could be made that they're "harmful", they still don't claim to do something that they can't, and equal arguments could be made that having a child would be a burden on the individual and on society, and that having a child would be more harmful than the theoretical harm of having an abortion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I can't wait to introduce a "Right to Privacy, Right to Choose" bill, legalizing a host of dangerous and harmful activities with the consent of those involved. I look forward to Purple State's support.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I can't wait to introduce a "Right to Privacy, Right to Choose" bill, legalizing a host of dangerous and harmful activities with the consent of those involved. I look forward to Purple State's support.

     That would of course be a wonderful bill for the Senate to pass, though I somehow suspect that you mean that rather tongue-in-cheek.

I'm quite serious.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just to clarify, you absolutely do not believe that homosexuality is a disease, illness, or disorder of any kind, or harms an individual and/or impairs their ability to live their life?

Edit: And you don't believe it's a choice, right?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, just to clarify, you absolutely do not believe that homosexuality is a disease, illness, or disorder of any kind, or harms an individual and/or impairs their ability to live their life?

Edit: And you don't believe it's a choice, right?

No, I don't beleive it is a disease, illness, or disorder. I don't see how it would impair their abililty to live their life even if it were a disease, illness, or disorder, which of course it isn't so thats beside the point.

As to your last question, I don't mean to be Clintonian but that would depend on your definition of "Choice". If you mean a choice of whether or not they supress it then yes it would be a choice since several choose to do so. On the other hand if you are referring to whether or not they have the implulses to supress in the first place, I would have to say that is not a choice.

I appreciate that, though I still found your initial comments as a bit provocative, considering you don't seem to be nearly as unreasonable as they made you out to be on this issue.