LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[afleitch]

As long as they aren't being forced to go there (could change this bill to make sure people who are underage aren't forced to go there) there is no reason to ban them. And we can go back to what Peter said in the Senate Protest and Analysis Thread.

It's a template bill. It's designed to be amended.

[afleitch]

I can see I've opened a can of worms here. The whole point of tabling this bill is that it was of questionable constitutionality but it raises the question of how you can legislate to protect people who are co-erced into attending these programmes and those, such as minors who are forced to. The new Senate is getting to grips with bills that have to be amended and changes etc. Introducing this was designed to see what could be done with a bill that is questionable.

Off topic, DWTL you sicken me.

[afleitch]

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.

I have to agree, that was absolutely disgusting.  You imply (actually more than imply) that homosexuality is a disease that those afflicted with should be cured from, if possible.  I would say these things are true about alcoholism.  Homosexuality was taken off the American Psychiatric Associations list of disorder iirc in the 1970's.

What I am implying is that people feel that homosexually is something that they cannot live with and want to try and help themselves, the government should not be in the business of telling them they can't just as much as they should not be in the business of telling them homosexuality is wrong.  The country is taking a dangerous path of giving not an equal field to homosexuals and heterosexuals but putting homosexuals on a pedestal

You're talking as if such treatment actually worked. It doesn't, it merely forces someone to supress a part of themselves. Therefore any institution that claims to 'change' peoples sexuality is fraudulent. Fraudulent businesses of any nature should not be allowed to operate freely or coerce people into accepting their custom.

And you still sicken me.

[afleitch]

And you still sicken me.

The only thing sickening here is your disgust for the constitution.  You feel that because your a homosexual and that others feel your lifestyle is wrong, you should be able to squash them.  Why not allow the free exchange of ideas?   Hell, I think astrologers do harm to people, but I am not going to shut them down.

I don't give a damn about a game and it's fantasy constitution. I give a damn about you and what you said about gays wanting to 'better themselves' yet you bleat on about how terrible it is that I 'oppose' something in a game. You said something odious and now you try and turn it back on those who call you out.

Anyways, that aside this can become a general resolution if the Senate sees fit.

[afleitch]

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.

[afleitch]

I'm going to vote Nay on the amendment, even though I have no issue with it because there has been nothing but an assumption that this bill would be unconstitutional.

I feel that I probably should comment on the consitutional aspect of this bill. I am struggling with why such a bill would be unconstitutional unless it infringes upon 'free exercise of religion', and I see no reason as to why it would. I do not see how changing peoples sexuality is a cornerstone of any religion and even if it was argued that it was, I do not understand why the state could not legislate against it if it so wishes. Some people believe that their religion entitles them to use what could be considered to be excessive physical and mental chastisment for the punishment of 'wrongdoings' , yet I fail to see how in the protection of children and vulnerable adults, it is unconstitutional for the state to say that the level of chastisment was exessive and by law, constitutes a crime. In short a man cannot get away with emotionally imprisoning and physically striking his wife because a religous book says he's allowed to and should use that level of control and force, by claiming 'free exercise of religion.'

Banning these insitutions does not affect on people's ability to practice their religion. It also does not abridge freedom of speech; they can still say that 'gays must change', they simply cannot organise institutions that claim to do such a thing.

[afleitch]

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.

Please ensure you insert a clause that allows people of faith to chastise people in line with how their holy book commands. Abused woman need to understand that their partner has a right to follow his religion and conscience.

EDIT: Which of course I don't support. The issue before the Senate was not one of the constitution as demonstrated but where the Senate wishes to intervene to protect citizens from psychological abuse. 

[afleitch]

Aye.

[afleitch]

Nay

It would be intersting to know why you voted nay on the amended bill.

[afleitch]

Nay

It would be intersting to know why you voted nay on the amended bill.

Maybe because he likes freedom?  I don't know just a shot in the dark

But the amended bill related to parents forcing minors to attend institutions to 'change' their child's sexuality. Who's freedom counts here - the adults or the childs?

[afleitch]

Nay

It would be intersting to know why you voted nay on the amended bill.

Well, I like the idea of doing this just for children, as most of those cases are done by annoying parents who can't accept their kids for who they are. I just think the age requirements should be lowered. I would support lowering the age from 18 to 15.

You could have proposed an amendment. Remember this is the final vote. If it fails it falls.

[afleitch]

These places don't work, being gay isn't a choice. But why should we make them illegal if people want to go to them? That's their choice, I'm just against parents forcing their kids to go to them and probably damaging them mentally or pushing them to commit suicide. It's really disgusting. But as I said if people want to go they can make that decision themselves and then aren't likely to face what I just said since they themselves have made the choice to go.

I agree with you. Remember I proposed this legislation in order to ignite debate; I did not believe it would have passed as it stood, though I don't feel if it had it would have been unconstitutional - it was more a matter of whether the state should or should not legislate in the matter and I'm happy with the arguments in favour of the final bill

Of course it's opened a can of worms on other matters

[afleitch]

With 6 Ayes, 2 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.

Point of order, Mister PPT.  After reviewing the votes on the amendment, I find only 5 "aye" votes.  Thus the amendment has not yet been passed:

Aye: MasterJedi, Fritz, NCYankee, Hashemite, Purple State
Nay: Marokai Blue, Aflietch
Not voted: Franzl, MaxQue,
tmthforu94

That's my bad. Earlier today, I had planned on editing that post to explain my reasonings, but clicked the delete button instead. There were 6 "aye" votes when MasterJedi posted that, so the amendment did pass.
My bad..

Don't worry - these things are easily done

[afleitch]

As I said before, with the amendment this bill seems fairly reasonable so

Aye



Out of all the issues this is the one I most wish would just go away. Its divisive and hurtfull, and its one I hate and find difficult to discuss. As such I have tried to avoid this issue as long as possible. I am a Senator, and so I can't hide from an issue just to avoid causing controversy. I have no problem if people are disgusted at me because I voiced my position on an issue, however I don't want people to be disgusted at me for a position I don't hold, for instance, contrary to the common  interpretation here of my previous post, I don't think homosexuality is a disease or an illness. My statement regarding the APA's actions in regards to this was unnecessarily confusing and served no purpose in regards to the overal bill. Therefore I am sorry I wrote I wrote that paragraph. My intent was to pass critisicism on methods used to compel them to take such an action, not the action itself. If you go back an read my post you will see that fits with the posts overall theme that is essentially critical of the Left's tactics and methods.

The reaction I and others had was, you have to understand based on a rather cryptic post. You began by stating that, 'For any society to remain orderly it is essential for people to suppress parts of themselves' and then onwards to your statement that people who wished to try and suppress their sexuality should be allowed to do so. That is a valid point and one many have made, but your pretext that suppression was necessary to ensure that society remained 'ordered' gave the suggestion that such action was preferable, indeed that those who did not suppress were creating a culture of 'selfishness.' This, rather than anything to do with the APA was what led me to the assumption that you were 'anti'

You then began your assessment of the APA. This is a tired argument and one that I've heard many times; it's plausability would only rest on the idea that psychology and all other sciences that compliment it has stood still for nearly 40 years and negates advances in the field and indeed in biological sciences. Had the APA not made it's decision then it would be under strenuous efforts to do so now based on advances in psychology across all fields including those not specific to the study of sexuality. In short an evidence based decision. Indeed many registered psychologists who have professed to have taken a stance against declassifying homosexuality in the 1970's have admitted that advances would have professionally changed their opinion in the years that followed.

Instead you lay the charge that society has been 'bullied' by the left into reaching a concensus on these issues. If you had a breadth and depth of knowledge on the gay rights movement, particularly outside of the bish bash of 'left-right' politics on both sides of the Atlantic and indeed delved back to the 50's, the 30's even the 1800's you would see that this was not the case. The movement tapped into a vast array of political and philosophical sources. It is only since the 80's/90's and the political effects of HIV/AIDS panic that the 'right' has chosen to blame the counter culture for the appraisal of sexuality and it's politicisation. I contend and always have done that this has been to the conservatives movements detriment.

EDIT: Indeed the only issue I would have with the APA and psychologists and psychiatrists in general is not the decision reached but the methodology employed to reach their findings. Do not forget that prior to the 60's it was common to make use of electro-shock, aversion therapy, hormone therapy, lobotomies and even castration to either 'treat' or study sexuality. It is to a very old friend of mines credit he sees the one benefit of his 'treatment' is the fact that it led to it's own end.