LGB Dignity Bill (Law'd)

[Fritz]

Aye

[Hash]

Aye.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Nay

[afleitch]

Nay

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

[DownWithTheLeft]

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

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

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

We all love the freedom to opress our children, and brainwash them

[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?

[tmthforu94]

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.

[MasterJedi]

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.

[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

[Fritz]

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

[tmthforu94]

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..

[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

[tmthforu94]

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

Haha
Thanks, I was worried some of y'all would bring down the wrath on me.
I rarely use my mouse, but use the spacebar and arrows. I hit the spacebar instead of arrowing over to "cancel", thus, deleting the post.

[Fritz]

Well if this had been a vote in a voting booth for an election, you would have invalidated it.  I don't know what the Senate's rules are on this, but be more careful with your votes, k? 

[tmthforu94]

Well if this had been a vote in a voting booth for an election, you would have invalidated it.  I don't know what the Senate's rules are on this, but be more careful with your votes, k? 

No, I don't think so, since the vote was over. Because if that was the case, a couple of Leif's voters could invalidate their votes, and PiT would become President.
I will be more careful though. I guess I'll have to start using the mouse, bleh.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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?

[MasterJedi]

This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

As you have noticed before I tend to start out very provocative and then work my way down. It also is affected by my general mood at the time of the posts which was not very positive at the time.

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.

1. As I said in response to Marokai up top, I tend to start out very provocative and as I calm down, I return to reason. My whole rant on the Left was generally a reaction to Marokai's statement that he wanted to assualt(Spit on) DWTL. Just because someone says something you disagree with it is never justificalbe to respond in a such away. That of course doesn't excuse what I said either.

2. Yes I do beleive that either way people who suppress themselves or those who choose to live openly should be respected as long as they and no once else made the decision. The comments relating to society and such should have been more clear and preferrably not included at all.

3. My opinion has generally been that the APA was rushed in making a decision, I still think it should and would have de-classiffied a long time ago even if not in 1970. I could of course be wrong on that, its just the impression I got from events. As you said many people who initially opposed it have changed there minds and now believe it was the right decision. 

4. The methods that were used back then were so vile as to qualify as torture. I have seen video footage of them performing electro-shock on people,, and it was sickening. Not one of my favorite fields.