I think you are either being purposely obtuse or you cannot follow a logical flow of how knowledge has increased while morality has shifted from one extreme to another in most western cultures for thousands of years. If we don't kill off the human race in the next 50 years the chances are that the next generation will be so disgusted with the "free love" culture that pervades the west it will shift back to a strict morality; by choice not mandate if for no other reason than that STD are becoming resistant to medications. Sex for sex sake is playing Russian roulette.
Who the hell was talking about free love? I don't think I ever mentioned it. Anyway, in 50 years, computers will be 33,554,432 times more powerful than they are today, if not more. (Moore's law.) I'm pretty sure we'll have solved the whole HIV issue by then. But that's besides the fact. But that's besides the point. Because we were discussing gay people if anything, not "free love."
What does being gay have to do with contracting HIV? I'm pretty sure heterosexuals aren't immune to HIV. So no, I don't see people suddenly looking down on gay people again in fifty years.
Every one of your posts assumes you understand how all Christians think based on what you want to believe. The fact is some Christians have not taken the Bible literally since about the 3rd century and since this is not a science forum your appeal to science (unless you want to discuss the science of homosexuality) is out of place. Now, I have researched the science of homosexuality over the last 20 years and have found that what is published by the liberal and gay press is what evolutionists label ID - junk science.
Ah, sorry. I forgot that devout Christians were immune to logic. How stupid of me.
Now, I have researched the science of homosexuality over the last 20 years and have found that what is published by the liberal and gay press is what evolutionists label ID - junk science.
Should I care about your opinion of what is published by liberal and gay press? Are you an expert in any field pertaining to this research? Somehow, I doubt you are.
Just as a side note, you should study the sexual mores of 1st-3rd century Rome where marriage was a revolving door, bi-sexuality among the elite was acceptable, and homosexual prostitution was legal. In other words HopelessComposer you don't know what you are talking about.
I'm afraid I don't grasp what you're trying to say here. I know that homosexuality has been acceptable before. What I'm saying is that with all the media coverage and crap homosexual activists and liberals are getting nowadays, I see sexuality being accepted as good, forever. I don't see your "pendulum" "swinging back" again. Sorry if that disappoints you.