LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[Purple State]

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. I have no problem amending this to state that underage minors may not be forced to attend such institutions, as well as to include a statement condemning these institutions. Anything more I will have to vote against.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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."

Simply by virtue of the Court's lengthy decision, it is clear the question regarding the GM was up in the air. No where in the Constitution was the GM referred to as an executive department.

On the other hand, this violates free speech, the right (albeit likely misguided) to pursue happiness and a slew of other clauses in the Constitution.

[Purple State]

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?

[Purple State]

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?

Some find it counter productive and harmful not to have such options available. People shouldn't have the right to choose? I wouldn't oppose adding provisions requiring full detail of the effectiveness of the program to those who wish to sign up, as well as a disclaimer that the government disapproves of such institutions. Informed consent is fine with me, so long as we do not outright interfere with what many view as an effective and useful way to move past urges they do not wish to have, however faulty you may believe their logic is.

[Purple State]

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.

Which is why I have introduced an amendment to change the bill to be constitutional. Waiting for a vote on that.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

[Purple State]

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.

I can't imagine what you have in mind. We allow assisted suicides (and if we don't, we should), so what exactly is more dangerous than that?

Bear in mind I don't disagree with your intent. It's just not constitutional. My amendment simply brings the bill around to something that will have an impact.

[Purple State]

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?

[Purple State]

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?

We know than they don't work. The problem is than some crazies/crooks is persuading those people than those treatments works, when they don't work. We don't allow businesses to make false advertising, why should we allow false advertising from ''gay cure'' camps, since they are saying false things to persuade people to choose them. What is the difference, except than ''gay cure'' can give you mental problems for the rest of their life?

Or it can make you believe you are "cured" and allow you to live the life you desired. Look, I am a huge proponent of gay rights and civil rights in general. I believe these institutions are crap and attempt to exploit the desire to "fit in." I also have no problem suing individual organizations that use deceptive advertising.

However, I do not endorse the wholesale shutting down of a group of organizations. We allow fortune-tellers that claim to tell people their futures, even though we know its a crank and deceptive. We allow people to gamble, even though we know that people make back only 93% of what they spend (and the machines are set to pay out as such). Both of these can lead to mental problems (addiction, fear), but we don't ban them because, at a certain point, it is up to the individual to make their own life choices. The government cannot be there to save people from themselves.

[Purple State]

Aye

I'm happy we could come to some sort of middle ground on this, despite the controversy and heated emotions that the subject brought out. It is an important issue, but we all have to keep our own biases in check when discussing matters that do not affect only ourselves.

[Purple State]

I'm happy we could come to some sort of middle ground on this.

Aren't you always?

When we come to an acceptable compromise? You know it.