LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[Vepres]

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.

Isn't palm reading fraudulent? Certainly you wouldn't ban that. While, yes, I do think these institutions are horrible things, the government really has no business in it. It could, in theory, violate the consitution.

Why not simply pass a resolution that disapproves of these practices?

[Vepres]

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.

You do realize all of your words and characterizations are subjective, right? You say these institutions are harmful and fraudulent. Anti-abortion activists call abortion clinics harmful (even murderous) and immoral, illegal.

Also, while it may be biologically impossible to alter one's sexual attraction, if one wishes to be brainwashed why should we be able to stop them? There are many religious institutions that I believe are harmful to people and brainwash them against their natural instincts (for example, BBQ pork smells amazing, but I've been brainwashed by schools and groups to not be able to bring myself to eat it). Nevertheless, we can't dictate what private institutions individuals can choose to go to.

Right to privacy, right to choose. Principals are principals and you can't accept them when you like it and throw them out the window when you don't.

^
This.

I would say that I am a bit disgusted by what DWTL and NCYankee are saying (no offense guys, I'm still on your side in many respects).

[Vepres]

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.

You do realize all of your words and characterizations are subjective, right? You say these institutions are harmful and fraudulent. Anti-abortion activists call abortion clinics harmful (even murderous) and immoral, illegal.

Also, while it may be biologically impossible to alter one's sexual attraction, if one wishes to be brainwashed why should we be able to stop them? There are many religious institutions that I believe are harmful to people and brainwash them against their natural instincts (for example, BBQ pork smells amazing, but I've been brainwashed by schools and groups to not be able to bring myself to eat it). Nevertheless, we can't dictate what private institutions individuals can choose to go to.

Right to privacy, right to choose. Principals are principals and you can't accept them when you like it and throw them out the window when you don't.

^
This.

I would say that I am a bit disgusted by what DWTL and NCYankee are saying (no offense guys, I'm still on your side in many respects).

A bit?

Well... (holds back rant on the issue), sigh, I don't want to get in a fight with people above me in my party.

[Vepres]

Well, my next bill will probably be for legalizing electrical shocks as a legal cure, since banning it could bar some people of searching the happiness.

As long as we aren't forcing it upon people, why not? We allow acupuncture. Hell, we allow women to wax their entire bodies. That has to hurt a ton. But they want it for nothing more than comfort and external beauty, so who am I to judge?

I believe electrical shock therapy would be illegal as false advertising in claiming it works. Besides, acupuncture has benefits, studies show that endorphins are released in the brains of some who receive it. As for women waxing their bodies, well nobody claims it isn't painful, but they do it for cosmetic reasons.

Hmmm... I move my position to neutral on this bill at the moment (not that it matters to anybody).