Do westerners still want a noble, enlightenment era just constitution?

[JohnAshton]

The organic interpretation of the Constitution is not going to change.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do we westerners still want our just and noble, enlightenment era constitutions? Or are people no longer interested in the good?

I think part of our societies are corrupted by media sex scenes, violence, inappropriate contentography, drugs, alcohol, and maybe gambling. Since their childhoods for two generations. Slowly before that by romance and some alcohol and maybe the two great wars and the loss of many fathers in so, gradually made honourable and fair people tolerant and permissive. Some of the tolerance is good. But I think looking at the infanticide bills and pushes of LGBTI ideology that society not so interested in its' old constitutions and the goodness, but more so permissiveness and opportunism, lust, and just getting what they want, pleasures, sex, money cars...

If that's how you understand the push for LGBT rights, I'm afraid there is little possible ground for fruitful dialogue.

What you call "goodness", I call slavish adherence to social traditionalism.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

If that's how you understand the push for LGBT rights, I'm afraid there is little possible ground for fruitful dialogue.

What you call "goodness", I call slavish adherence to social traditionalism.

The goodness I see are things like placing a high value on human life, from any race... and yet the old constitutions permitted hanging, it is too much an expression of anger.

LGBT rights are good for placing a value on potentially suicidal persons. But unnecessarily it comes at the expense of other persons rights and freedoms. If someone does what is wrong by the rights of a homosexual couple, the back lash is too much, as if they are now to be treated as if they were second class citizens, like the homosexuals once were. Being fired... It should be that all people have equal rights.

 

[Desk trauma]

The goodness I see are things like placing a high value on human life, from any race... and yet the old constitutions permitted hanging, it is too much an expression of anger.

LGBT rights are good for placing a value on potentially suicidal persons. But unnecessarily it comes at the expense of other persons rights and freedoms. If someone does what is wrong by the rights of a homosexual couple, the back lash is too much, as if they are now to be treated as if they were second class citizens, like the homosexuals once were. Being fired... It should be that all people have equal rights.

That's quite the collection of contradictions you have there.

 

[FireDragon76]

The goodness I see are things like placing a high value on human life, from any race... and yet the old constitutions permitted hanging, it is too much an expression of anger.

LGBT rights are good for placing a value on potentially suicidal persons. But unnecessarily it comes at the expense of other persons rights and freedoms.

Human dignity is the basis for all rights. People that do not respect the dignity of others should not receive special privileges merely because they are enamored with ancient superstition.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Human dignity is the basis for all rights. People that do not respect the dignity of others should not receive special privileges merely because they are enamored with ancient superstition.

What are the special privileges?

 

[Desk trauma]

What are the special privileges?

Not having to obey the law if they really, really, believe that they should not have to typically in relation to public accommodation or nondiscrimination law, their religion being given pride of place by the state in exclusion to all others, the right to keep jobs that they refuse to do, exempting their business from regulation all other business have to abide by, having to have a religious reason for contentious objector status.

 

[FireDragon76]

What are the special privileges?

Like violating anti-discrimination laws.

 

[JohnAshton]

That's quite the collection of contradictions you have there.

Your statement about GoldenKingGaze's statement is the contradiction, Desk Trauma, because it is false. Recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ recognizes the human rights of all of us.

 

[Desk trauma]

Your statement about GoldenKingGaze's statement is the contradiction, Desk Trauma, because your is false. Recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ recognizes the human rights of all of us.

What about my post was false or contradictory?

 

[FireDragon76]

What's happened since the 60's isn't social decline, it's marginalized groups of people finding a voice and demanding equal respect and equal dignity.

 

[JohnAshton]

What about my post was false or contradictory?

On the face of it. Religious rights of individuals do not outweigh or invalidate LGBTQ+ rights. Why would you ever think they would?

 

[Desk trauma]

On the face of it. Religious rights of individuals do not outweigh or invalidate LGBTQ+ rights. Why would you ever think they would?

I don't.

 

[JohnAshton]

I don't.

Very good.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Do we westerners still want our just and noble, enlightenment era constitutions? Or are people no longer interested in the good?

I think part of our societies are corrupted

See if you can find it the study on Galatians (key word: pernicious) by wuest.
Or just read Galatians (key word: pernicious).

According to all Scripture, in Total Harmony (no contradictions),
it is not just part of our societies that are corrupted.

I don't think 'westerners', per say, can escape this , God's Word/ God's appraisal/ either.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Not having to obey the law if they really, really, believe that they should not have to typically in relation to public accommodation or nondiscrimination law, their religion being given pride of place by the state in exclusion to all others, the right to keep jobs that they refuse to do, exempting their business from regulation all other business have to abide by, having to have a religious reason for contentious objector status.

I understand that they should recognize the laws, but I was saying they should not if they go wrong have proven to have now lost their rights.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

The equal rights, no losses for anyone is great. Including those yet to be born.

 

[JohnAshton]

Anyone has the right to protest lawfully unlawful laws.

Denial of LGBTQ+ rights is unlawful and immoral.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

It boils down to a matter of peace for each person. Wholeness, wellbeing, being civil. Peace in mind as a matter of conscience and there are divided opinions, but still peace is the coordinate. Asking for love outside a real theocracy is too much. I think professional conflict resolvers from an unbiased or Christian peace point of view should have been called upon, until a good working popular decision came forward. Popular with more like 95% of people or more.

Anyone has the right to protest lawfully unlawful laws.

Denial of LGBTQ+ rights is unlawful and immoral.

 

[FireDragon76]

It boils down to a matter of peace for each person. Wholeness, wellbeing, being civil. Peace in mind as a matter of conscience and there are divided opinions, but still peace is the coordinate. Asking for love outside a real theocracy is too much. I think professional conflict resolvers from an unbiased or Christian peace point of view should have been called upon, until a good working popular decision came forward. Popular with more like 95% of people or more.

Human rights should never be up for popular decision. That's why we have law as its own field of expertise.