I wonder if you read what I post or if you are simply posting sophomoric hubris. I posted that Christians do not have the right to force their morality and beliefs on non-Christians. Also your attempt to paraphrase my post demonstrates that you are not interested in finding out what I believe, which I have made clear on this thread.
I phrased it as a question, did I not? Also; since you haven’t made anything clear other than your apparent disliking of yours truly; you’re quite right I am now more preoccupied with defending myself than maintaining much interest your beliefs.
As far as actually reading the other’s posts is concerned:
Irrelevant not in terms of change so much as moral interpretation. Again I'll attempt to express it in a different way; surely, (you will notice that I use the word 'surely' a lot - for it adopts a more free and open-to-change tone - as opposed to your default routine of making blunt, vague & often insulting remarks) even in biblical terms, it's not the becoming gay that is right or wrong but how you choose to deal with it? Understood? As for the second sentence I never said otherwise. The concept of 'gay life' is an interesting one though; I've never quite grasped it. It's one of these terms that angsty 'gothic' homosexual acquaintances tend to throw up whenever they want a bit of sympathy and attention. As far as I'm aware there's no such thing.
Yes, I notice you use the word “surely” a lot, but “surely” does not mean what you think it does.
In what way does that actually address the point of what I said other than to pick up on some irrelevant factor and attack with your usual condescending bull in an attempt to make me personally, not my views, look foolish? I suppose I should consider it anyway:
The word ‘surely’, beyond the mechanically narrow dictionary defined perspective, is more often used in non-rhetorical questions than to make definitive statements as you are well aware. As in “surely not?” etc.
As to who is forcing their opinions on a others, here is what you posted on another thread:
The American Psychiatric Association is supposed to be an organization of scientists, now if political activism is the basis for making a scientific decision the organization that craters to activists looses it right to be called scientific.
You could look at it like that I suppose... political pressure effecting & using scientific evidence in a false way. Although since you can't really 'twist' evidence to mean something that it doesn't (because evidence is evidence and can mean several things and determining WHICH of those requires yet more evidence), then if political pressure were to effect the results of a study or what have you to come up differently then it would have to be simple lying. You could also interpret that as politics pressurising science to look into things it hadn't looked into before, something which might previously have been taken for red. Same with women's suffridge again: the general assumption was that women's minds were too emotionally unstable to handle politics. The political pressure of the time would have made science look into this more deeply and they would have found that it was not actually true as such.
You’ve not read that either. You’ll notice that I’ve not even stated any of my opinions. I’ve simply presented some different views (my
own are left inconspicuous – and since I was an atheist you should realise that none of the perspectives I’d brought up would adhere to what I thought anyway, which would simply be “no God = no sin”). Also, as I said, stating opinions and trying to force people to think your way are two separate actions.