LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[Fritz]

Aye (sorry, guys, I feel badly about doing this)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye




I have still not been shown any evidence that proves these places do not work, or are dangerous.

[Хahar 🤔]

The total lack of any corroboration that they do work should provide some.

[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.

[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.

[Hash]

Aye.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[MasterJedi]

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

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 meant that rather tongue-in-cheek.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

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.

The RPP is quite the cabal, isn't it?

[MaxQue]

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.

And I'm disgusted by the Crappy South Senator who is thinking than homosexuality is a disease. Bigotry should be a mental disease, but we would have a problem to find mentally sane Southeasterners.

[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?

[MaxQue]

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?

[Fritz]

I've been trying to come up with an amendment that would make the original bill viable, but I'm not coming up with one.  The bill as amended takes care of the major problem, I believe- that being parents sending their children to these programs.  Beyond that, free thinking informed adults have the rights to make their own decisions, even bad ones.

[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.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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 agree, its not the gov't decision to tell people what is and isn't right, it is there to decision to find it out on their own.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[afleitch]

Aye.