I'm not sure I see the connection, but I would like to point out that I didn't say NO moral absolutes should be forced on people. I said SOME shouldn't.
But if morality has to do not only with action but intention (the intention specifies the act", says Aquinas) and intention can't be forced - at least I think it can't - I might be able to compel some behaviors or the avoidance of some behaviors, but others would be beyond my power to compel. For instance, I could punish marital infidelity, but I don't see how I could compel husbands to love their wives.
Shouldn’t a real moral absolute be something inherent in every soul throughout history?
Well according to the account of the "God, The universe, and Everything" which I hold, they were inherent, but humans got broken, or broke themselves. They don't know themselves, they don't know what they want, much less what they ought to want, and even when they have a clue about what they want, they don;'t know how to get it.
It's not the absence of moral absolutes which makes for disagreements, it's the absence of self-knowledge. Other aspects of our personal disintegrity (?) have to do with how we don't or can't do what we think we should. But, in general, yeah, if there is such a thing as human nature, I think there is at least a logical inherentness to the best way to be human. But that doesn't mean we know all of it.
Again, it seems that very nearly every culture on earth teaches that you shouldn't just have sex with whoever whenever (or whatever!). This is so general an idea that the few cultures that don't think so are regarded as truly weird
But the notion that it "works" best when it's one guy and one chick and a lifelong commitment to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church, that's not (or is no longer) inherent. That's got to be revealed.
Personally, I don’t believe in moral absolutes for all. I just believe that men have been designed to strive for what they believe to be a moral absolute.