You are making the assumption, to my mind entirely unfounded, that there is any "forcing" going on by the correct (why, yes, I went there) side in any of the issues expressed in this thread. As an example, same-sex marriage doesn't affect them unless they choose to marry someone of the same sex.
Nobody's "imposing" anything on anyone. It is the absence of imposition to which you seem bound and determined to protest. Why?
You are, alas, making entirely unfounded assumptions about my personal beliefs. The third sentence of my previous post is the only thing I've said in this thread about that. Elsewise I'm just talking general psychology.
I haven't asserted that you're infringing on anyone in more than a general sense, by the way. Though 'nuh-uh' wouldn't be a particularly convincing response if I had. And I'm not even talking about 'everyone who doesn't hate gays'. Nor am I excluding people who do hate gay people from my criticism. Given that I already believe that you're right and they're wrong (about gay rights, anyway), your posts don't seem to be going anywhere.
Edit: For future reference, "X is right" and "I believe that X is right" convey exactly equivalent information unless you're talking about psychology, which I am and you don't appear to me to be. Saying it really loudly doesn't change the epistemology. Am I misunderstanding you?
Yeah, I do think you are misunderstanding me. Your post says, "If you decide that, just this once, it isn't really imposing your beliefs on others", which is itself an invalid characterization of everything in the thread up to that point. My point is that precisely no-one on the side of the person to whom you were replying is doing that. There is no advocacy of the imposition of belief being performed. There is advocacy for the implementation of policy, but that is not the same thing; nobody's beliefs are even being questioned.
(Claims that the government being permissive on something is an infringement upon those who do not wish to perform that act do not follow logically. Not saying that's what you'd say next, but it's a common enough next step in this conversation so I figured I'd touch on it just-in-case.)
I'm afraid I'm not misunderstanding you. Though I'm not trying to change your mind now either. I'll finish by suggesting you look up the technical definition of 'belief'. I haven't been discussing religion or philosophy.
Back to both sides trying to crush each other under the weight of law, I suppose. No surprises there.
I am well aware of the definition. I reject the idea that you can be imposing on another's beliefs by doing something that has no impact upon them. And I find that characterization inhuman and stupid.
Nobody's "imposing" anything on anyone. It is the absence of imposition to which you seem bound and determined to protest. Why?