You and yours refuse to grow up and put responsibility and common sense ahead of your sexual needs. You refuse to think farther than your next hit or trick. You refuse to stop lying to confused teenage boys and infecting them with a deadly disease.

How can you say that Dave has done any of these things, especially as he states that he’s celibate.

And then, I’m also talking about spiteful crap like this:

Jimbo, if a gay guy wants to get married, he needs to decide which is a higher priority: marriage or gay sex.

Sounds like your friend was more interested in gay sex than he was in being married, keeping his promise to his wife, and standing by his children.

Why is that anyone’s fault but his? Better yet, what makes you think that, if this guy was willing to lie to your friend for his own personal gratification, that he wouldn’t also lie to anyone or anything else he married?

You don’t even know the guy! And yet you’ve made him into yet another ghastly homo-scarecrow for you to beat on some more.

Dave, thank you for going out on a limb and expressing yourself. I agree with you about the tone of the language used to discuss (fellow?) members of the LGBT community in the comments.

As for you, NDT, well, it’s saddening to see that some things never change. Your comments are still just as spiteful and full of hate as ever. I can scarcely believe that one human being could say the sort of things you say and still sleep at night.

And I’m not talking about condemning behaviours. I’m talking about attributing them to anyone who disagrees with you, and then somehow to every gay person you don’t even know.

It’s possible that, at the time of the marriage, he decided (wrongly) that being married was more important than seeking a relationship with a man. And it appears that he may have been pressured to marry. No, it doesn’t absolve responsibility from this guy who lied to his wife. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help your friend, whose marriage was doomed from day one.

Sounds like your friend was more interested in gay sex than he was in being married, keeping his promise to his wife, and standing by his children.

Why is that anyone’s fault but his? Better yet, what makes you think that, if this guy was willing to lie to your friend for his own personal gratification, that he wouldn’t also lie to anyone or anything else he married?

Like AE said above: “Don’t want to marry a woman? Fine. Have a relationship with whomever you want. You are free to do so.”

Why stop there? What if you love two people? Or three people? Or six? How dare the state limit you and say only one of those relationships is valid? How oppressive? Are the polyamorous not also entitled to equality in terms of state recognition of their relationships?

I don’t see why not, only it’s not practical to have polyamorous marriage, and if polyamorous marriage were allowed, many two people marriage would suffer.

Let me explain. Same sex marriage is easy to implement (at least talking from a legal point of view). A simple word replace can be done, for example changing “one man and one woman” to “two people of any sex” and boom, it’s done. All the rights and responsibilities, by and large can apply to same sex couples. The ones that can’t (IE having children biologically), while they don’t apply there isn’t the possibility they can be abused.

Polyamory is a different matter. If you allow polyamory, and everyone in, say, a city got into a massive polyamorous marriage, there would be nothing to stop every single person from getting employment benefits (IE healthcare), and from filing joint taxes. The cost to business and government would be massive.

And what if you love your sister, or your brother, or you mother, or your grandfather? How dare the state enforce religious-based strictures against people’s love? Aren’t those involved in incestuous relationships also entitled to state recognition of their relationships?

It does. Any two people in Hawaii can get state recognised benefits. Even if they are related.

Unless you’re trying to argue that gender doesn’t matter in marriage, but numbers and biological relationships do.

Point me to where it is forbidden to discriminate against a group of people based on the number of participants in said group or because of one’s biological connection.

And what if you love your sister, or your brother, or you mother, or your grandfather? How dare the state enforce religious-based strictures against people’s love? Aren’t those involved in incestuous relationships also entitled to state recognition of their relationships?

Unless you’re trying to argue that gender doesn’t matter in marriage, but numbers and biological relationships do.

But you are not asking for equal treatment. youre asking for society to give you the same benefits it gives to encourage one behavior for exhibiting an entirely different behavior.

And dont give the that bullshit about being able to marry the person you love. Find the marriage statute anywhere in the United States that mentions ANYTHING about love, and you will have an argument.

But none of them do! Because society’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with love. Its why there is no test to see if a couple is really in love before marrying. There is no requirement. Blood tests? Yes. Love tests? No. People who dont love eachother get married all the time and have for millenia.

Marry a black and be treated the same as any other black who marries a black. Until then, you are absolutely demanding special rights.

NO ONE wants SPECIAL treatment…Just EQUALITY!

Phil

No one is preventing you from having equality Phil. Go marry a woman. You are just as free as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex. Dont want to marry a woman? Fine. Have a relationship with whomever you want. You are free to do so.

But you are not asking for equal treatment. youre asking for society to give you the same benefits it gives to encourage one behavior for exhibiting an entirely different behavior.

And dont give the that bullshit about being able to marry the person you love. Find the marriage statute anywhere in the United States that mentions ANYTHING about love, and you will have an argument.

But none of them do! Because society’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with love. Its why there is no test to see if a couple is really in love before marrying. There is no requirement. Blood tests? Yes. Love tests? No. People who dont love eachother get married all the time and have for millenia.

Marry a woman and be treated the same as any other man who marries a woman. Until then, you are absolutely demanding special rights.

Actually, I think V the K has clarified his very nicely.

the problem is, Dave, that liberals like yourself are unable to distinguish between acceptable homosexual behavior and depravity, and end up screaming that anyone who criticizes the behaviors that I outlined in comments 30 through 32 has “sick, obsessive hate” for gay people.

No one believes that you oppose these things, Dave, because you adamantly refuse to condemn them and insist that anyone who does condemn them is homophobic and antigay. Thus, there is no need for someone like yourself who will turn a blind eye to child sexual abuses and destructive promiscuity rather than to admit that another gay person is doing something wrong to ever have children or be allowed to be married.

Because, Dave, there are not only participants, but condoners and enablers like yourself.

Since you aren’t even able to condemn the behavior of those engaging in self-destructive acts, but instead shriek that those who do are engaging in “sick, obsessive hate”, why should you be given any more responsibility? Why should you be allowed to have children when you are screaming that there is nothing wrong with dressing up children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs and criticizing those who do condemn such behavior as practicing “sick, obsessive hate”?