Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

San Francisco married gay couple lose immigration case

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Staircase2 11 Aug 2011, 4:50pm

    This is outrageous.

    Bless them – Obama’s people need to DO something if they are to have any credibility. The US is really fvcked up on this issue.

    Shame on America!

  2. And Obama expects us gays and lesbians to vote for him again????

    1. concerned resident E3 11 Aug 2011, 5:14pm

      you’d rather have Michele Bachmann would you?

      1. Well, this is a UK, not a US site. But I still don’t see Democrats as liberators. Choosing between the two parties is rather like having the choice of drowning or being eaten alive by crocodiles. True that one is painful, noisy, and violent, but either way, you’re gonna get pulled down into the water to die.

    2. In America regarding voting with gay interests in mind you have three choices:

      1. Vote Democrat and gay rights seem to take two steps forward and one step back.

      2. Vote Republican and gay rights either stay in the same place or take a couple of steps back.

      3. Don’t vote and leave it up to the people who do vote. If you take the third option in ANY democracy IMO you have no right to complain if things go tits up.

      I would really urge you to vote when the time comes.

  3. Not entirely unlike some of the cases that go through the English courts. Good luck to them both.

  4. What can we do? Advise us Pink News..who do we email?

    1. write to the us senators for califonia ( barbra boxer and diane feinstein ) to intervene

      http://boxer.senate.gov/
      http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/

    2. There’s also a petition for this on Care2:

      http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/739/257/045/

      1. Thank you for the link. I have signed this petition. I urge others to do so too!!

  5. Christopher 11 Aug 2011, 5:33pm

    wasn’t there something about America being land of the free? Does that only apply to heterosexuals?

    1. Sure seems like it…at least for now.

    2. Freedom is not absolute. Incest for instance can be enjoyable and harmless for a father and son yet this is a crime. Why so? Because it is morally wrong as is gay marriage. Also, by definition, marriage must be between a male and female!
      Actually , the law does apply to heterosexuals also. No persons of the same sex may marry, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. This law covers ALL persons with NO exclusions.

      1. This comment is so ridic I can’t even believe it but I will try to reply anyway. First off, the definition of marriage has been changed so many times it makes no sense to use it as an argument. Unless you consider your wife to be your property? Second, incest and homosexuality are not comparable, because incest is not a sexuality. Third, your last argument is just plain stupid, not to mention insulting. Why would a heterosexual marry a person of the same sex? Heterosexuals have the right to marry those they are attracted to and fall in love with, homosexuals do not.

        1. If the definition is of marriage is no use in an argument, why are homosexuals so bent on redifining it when a civil partnership will afford the same ‘benefits’?
          Incest and homosexuality are comparable in that they are abhorrent and un-natural to many persons yet you would condemn a consensual father and son sexual relationship merely because you don’t approve. On what grounds is it wrong? Moral? Then it is the same with homosexuality!
          Heterosexuals have the same rights as homosexuals. Neither can marry the same sex..
          It is like a smoking ban. It benefits non smokers more than smokers yet the ban applies to everyone. It would be wrong and against equality to show a preference to individual groups.

          1. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:40am

            Go fvck yourself you nasty piece of sh!t!

            It’s you that should be banned and sectioned out of harms way.

            Put you away and your ilk and progress society will get.

          2. “Heterosexuals have the same rights as homosexuals. Neither can marry the same sex..”

            You do realise, don’t you that this makes MOST of what we would consider discrimination logically impossible. I presume from your comments that you claim to be a Christian. By your logic, if I were to ban all Christian services I would in no sense be discriminating against Christians as I as an atheists would (shock horror) be equally barred from attending such a service.

            Similarly banning interracial marriage would be non discriminatory as everyone would still be equally free to marry someone of their own race.

            Common sense suggests that we take into account people’s intrinsic needs when assessing discrimination.

            There may indeed be cases where there is an overriding social reason to discriminate, but none has been made against committed same sex relationships…

          3. A relationship between a parent and child is an abuse of power by the parent, an abuse of trust, as between a teacher and pupil.

            However, incest is biblically defined as between opposite sex. It most likely became seen as immoral by the Levites because of the monstrosities it produced in babies.

      2. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:39am

        “by definition, marriage must be between a male and female!”

        Only when religion hijacked it. Marriage is about two people celebrating their love for one another and religions have no right to hijack it esp for Civil Marriage.

        I know that bursts you bubble coz you’d rather have your stereotypical view that all Gay people are only after all the sex they can get but thats just you prejudice and discriminating bigotry talking.

        There are many of us who are happily settled with the one partner who should have the right to marry and throw back your bigotry in your faces.

        Thankfully some churches/religions are seeing this and fighting to be able to perform marriage equally.

        1. Many incestuous would also happily settle with one partner and many that enjoy bestiality. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT DOES IT?
          I notice also your prior post contained vile expletives and hateful language, comensurate with an immoral individual. It is yiou that is bigotted since I accept that others have opposing views and lifestyles without being vile and abusive. You apparently are bigotted and abusive to those with opposing views.

          1. Jock S. Trap 14 Aug 2011, 8:37am

            So comparing being Gay to incest and being a paedophilia isn’t harmful or offensive?

            I’m abusive to those who are abusive. You get all you deserve in life which for you is clearly rotten to the core.

            It’s people like you that damage society, that damage human beings and turn them into resentful abusive people.

            I go by the phrase “treat people how you wish to be treated”. You wanna give abuse you have to expect it back.

            The fact is if’s your not Gay why would you even question how people have sex?

            People are people and prehaps you should see them for being people and stop seeing all by the sex they have you Sick Disgusting Pervert!

            Fvck Off Bigot!!

          2. Jock S. Trap 14 Aug 2011, 8:39am

            My life is not up for debate.

            Who I am is not up for debate.

            I am Gay, this is how I was born. Deal with it, Ignore it, I don’t give a fig but it doesn’t give you the right to be discriminating and bigotted.

            Funny though how you can dish out the abuse but have problems taking it back…. typical!!!

        2. the first recorded marriage was in the bible over 6000 years ago with a male and female so it is the homosexuals that are hijacking it! personally , I don’t care what they call it, I am vehemently opposed to the laws of the creator, who surely knows best, being perverted.
          The bible says that many false prophets and wolvws in sheeps clothing will appear and mislead many (Acts “0 :28-29), hence the acceptance and condoning of these ungodly views by some churches.

          1. Jock S. Trap 14 Aug 2011, 8:49am

            Human beings and marriage have been around been around a lot longer than 6,000 years Idiot!

            Your a hypocrite because you clearly question your ‘creator’s’ creations. Thought you weren’t supposed to? and as for calling your ‘creator’ a pervert… well, thats hell for you then….LOL

            Fact. My parents created me. The rest is nature. Deal with it, small minded Bigot!

            Also a fact it is only religion which is a chosen lifestyle, you made you bed, now lie in it.

            Here’s some advise… try living your own life and not everyone elses.

          2. Jock S. Trap 14 Aug 2011, 8:53am

            I really can’t be bothered answering you anymore.

            Your full of hate and discrimination.

            Your too negative and bigotted.

            You do not favours to humanity, You wouldn’t be missed.

            I’ve had enough of your kind to deal with in my life and I’m actually lowing myself to deal with you.

            I’d rather debate with intelligent people not mindless morons like yourself who bring nothing into the arena.

          3. the first recorded marriage was in the bible over 6000 years ago with a male and female
            .
            Really? Which one was that? And by whom was it recorded?

          4. Can you tell us where it says that Adam and Eve were married? And who married them, there were no priests? The concept did not exist. Adam and Eve were not married, and Eve was created from Adam, so the relationship was incestuous. Also the only people that were around for their children to mate with were their siblings, incest again. It must have been a few generations later that incest was able not to be phased out, or was it when the Levites wrote Leviticus that it was forbidden? Also all the prophets had polygamous marriages in the Old Testament.

            Also some same sex saints got married in the early days of the church, as did some romans until gays started getting persecuted by 4th and 5th century homophobic Christian Roman emperors.

            Also it is illogical to claim that because some thing was done in one way once, other ways of doing it are therefore wrong. Tradition alone is not a good argument for anything.

        3. There were many marriages between same sex individuals noted in the history of the early Church, and in ancient Rome, prior to homophobia becoming legalised in the 4th/5th century and the death penalty for gay people being imposed by the Christian state.

      3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 2:51pm

        Keith/Pepa darling, come and lie on my couch for a bit.

    3. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:32am

      Sadly Christopher, it does…. Land of the Free… Land of the frackin joke if you ask me.

      1. I was not comparing ‘being’ gay to incest or pedophilia. they are completely different and twisted my words. I am saying on a moral level homosexual acts are equally abhorrent practices. How you took thi s as a PERSONAL insult I do not know since there are millions of. Pedophiles may also say they are born that way but that does not justify theiur perversions. They must control their urges. It is the same with homosexuals. Stay away from the anus. Excrement is a source of HPV even among monogamous couples. Carry on with your personal insults though it is clear you cannot handle legally held oppposing views and take them personally, but ask yourself who is the more likely candidate for a loathsome disease loathsome. A monogamous homosexual pair or a monogamous heterosexual pair?

        1. Your repeated references to the anus shows just where your obsessions lie, and perhaps explains why your arguments are sh1t.
          .
          Strange that you’re such an advocate of monogamy since there’s precious little of it among the dramatis personae of the Old Testament.

          1. I notice your failuer to address any of the issues I raised or de-construct my argument. repeating. Since you invoke the old testament, kindly show me the scripture where God institutes or approves approves of multiple partners. There is a difference between allowing something and approving it. God allows homosexuality bestiality and paedophilia and incest Does that mean he approves?
            Please state which STD a monogamous married pair may from one partner contract?
            I can tell you that a monogamous pair of male homosexuals may contract human papilloma virus from the fecal matter in the anus. Do you deny this?
            This is nature saying WRONG!

          2. Please state where God is reported to institute or approve sexual exclusivity for men.
            .
            Engaging with your obsession with faecal matter and anal sex is, I’m afraid, literally and figuratively beneath me.

          3. @Rehan
            You asked…(after answering my question with a question and failing to actually answer my question),
            “Please state where God is reported to institute or approve sexual exclusivity for men.”
            My answer is Matthew 19:5-6 (amongst many other scriptures)
            5.’FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER
            AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE
            TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?
            6.”So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
            So how about telling me where God approves of multiple marriage partners in the bible as you wrongly and ignorantly assert?
            Also, Please state which STD a monogamous married pair may from one partner contract? We already know that homosexual monogamous males still risk HPV though not so with the natural liason of a male and female.

          4. rehan said…
            “Engaging with your obsession with faecal matter and anal sex is, I’m afraid, literally and figuratively beneath me.”

            It is this dismissive attitude of the dangers of such un-natural and unclean practices that has condemned homosexuals and fornicators to the curse of loathsome diseases.
            I imagine you consider a doctor obsessive about cancer if he highlights the dangers of smoking.

          5. Jesus (as it were) Keith, you really are obsessed with faecal matter, aren’t you? Can’t you get your mind out of the sewer?
            .
            Thank you for that one extract from the New Testament. I take it, by implication, that you believe that your God reportedly didn’t approve of the myriad non-exclusive sexual relationships so enthusiastically described in the OT then? Your testimony does great credit to the concept of stupidity.
            .
            You might also want to ask yourself to what degree you feel your frankly unhealthy interest in other people’s anuses has to do with this news item. As for me, I have encouraged you too far already and am unprepared to do so further.

          6. Jock S. Trap 15 Aug 2011, 8:46am

            Keith

            Your a bore – fvck off you ignorant perv!

          7. Jock S. Trap 15 Aug 2011, 8:53am

            Fvck off Keith you ignorant perv!

          8. Jock S. Trap 15 Aug 2011, 8:57am

            Keith – fvck off you ignorant twat!

          9. “.’FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER
            AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE
            TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?”

            Nothing in that is about monogamy. Polygamists say you can be sequentially joined to different wives, and the husband would be one flesh with each of them. Not that I agree with polygamy, but this passage has nothing to do with banning it.

            St. Paul did however say that in his view Bishops should try and limit themselves to one wife, and that was just to stop themselves burning with lust.

        2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 2:53pm

          Keith/Pepa darling, you are an obsessive homophobe. I will pray that you be cured.

  6. paul edensor 11 Aug 2011, 5:34pm

    look speaking as an english man sorry an english gay man i think u need to lay of Obama, sure the guy has messed ur country up but this ain’t his fault and we have the same kind of actions happen over here, so ur not alone the only thing about us is we are a lot more forward then your goverment who r buttwipes on issues like this, how many of them have got there own sly rent boys on the side or are in to hardcore s&m 1 rule 4 1 many rules for others

  7. By not voting for Obama, American gays will have a life of hell if Bachmann, Pawlenty, Romney or any of the other radical right wing religious nutters get into the White House. Gays there will have to pack their bags and leave because they’re all for upholiding the DOMA, the Defence of Marriage Act and invalidating all of the marriages in six states, disenfranchising an entire group of people who happen to be gay. It’s frightening to think that might be a possibility with those religious fundamentalist scumbags in power, America’s equivalent to islamic extremists. Thank goodness we don’t have that nonsense in the UK taking over our government.

    1. de Villiers 11 Aug 2011, 9:05pm

      The DOMA was signed by Clinton.

  8. there are lots of people being deported, for what some would say unreasonable, it happens, they seem to think cause they’re gay and he has hiv they should get special treatment. gays seem to think the rules dont apply to them. and after their interveiw, they seem a little arrorgant about the whole thing

    1. John from MN 12 Aug 2011, 7:36am

      No, gays want EQUAL treatment. If they were a heterosexual couple he would have been a citizen by now. I don’t see where special treatment comes into the mix at all

      1. Equal treatment is one issue, sexual status is another! special treatment will have no bearing your marital status aside if you don’t have legal status or green card to be in the US even after years of residing there immigration services will relentlessly pursue you if you don’t leave voluntarily or until they deport you. Crying or playing the or LGBT cause card does not change any thing if you want to be in any country legally do it before you go there or arrive! if after 18/20 years your still not legal trying to trump the system or crying the blues or marital status changes nothing they US will see you as an illegal alien and pursue you as such.

    2. They’re married to each other. If he was in a straight marriage he wouldn’t be deported therefor this is discrimination

      1. I read the article again to day… and yes my mistake! it says no criminal record never in the country illegally. I must have been half asleep when I read it so sorry on my part !

        Some thing has to be amiss at this point I won’t speculate why he has been told to leave if his paper work is in order and currently valid. Federally I know they don’t recognize same sex marriage. and that is discrimination.

      2. You have to discriminate in life. Discrimination is always not illegal or wrong!

        1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 2:55pm

          Darling, you are ill. Seek help soon.

  9. de Villiers, Clinton had NO choice but to sign otherwise the republican controlled House of Representatives could have amended the constitution to ban same-sex marriage altogether. Besides, it was a hot button issue and it was either get re-elected or face republican control of both houses.

    For several reasons, among them, the fact that it was a hot-button election issue that he would almost certainly have been hammered on, and there was more than enough votes to override any veto.

    In the longer term, signing DOMA had a silver lining, because it more or less stopped the “amend the Federal Constitution to prevent gay marriage” movement in its tracks (there was no need, since DOMA presumably accomplished the same thing). Since it’s much easier to repeal a law than an amendment, and there was a good chance of DOMA being found unconstitutional when an appropriate test case came up, so signing it made for good politics at the time. The test case has now emerged.

    1. de Villiers 12 Aug 2011, 1:30pm

      Not only did he have the opportunity not to sign it, he then touted his advertising of it on radio before Congressional elections and further then advised Kerry, during his failed Presidential bid, publicly to support such a measure.

  10. Shame an independent lgbt activist can’t run for president and win by a landslide as Americans call it.

  11. Johnny33308 12 Aug 2011, 12:35am

    People, the point is made-even if we are eventually allowed to marry-it will not protect us from the venomous evil KKKristian horde of satanic minions. It is us, or them. They have made it this way, so shall we all just roll over and die? Or will we fight for our lives?

    1. Calm down, lets not demonise lots of innocent people because of a few bigots.

  12. Johnny33308 12 Aug 2011, 12:40am

    With liberty and justice for all-this is what our Pledge of Allegiance says. IT IS ALL LIES-AMERIKKKA IS NOT THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THERE IS ONLY JUSTICE IF YOU ARE A BREEDER! I AM ASHAMED TO BE AMERICAN! yet again!!

  13. David Gervais 12 Aug 2011, 2:04am

    If the appeal ultimately fails, come to Canada. Our immigration system is not perfect or easy to get through, but your marriage will be recognized and you will have equal rights during the process.

    1. Gay Daily Mail Reader 12 Aug 2011, 7:16am

      Canada sounds a good bet as it is further ahead with Gay Rights than the USA. Countries got to have an immigration policy to control the influx if migrants into their territories to prevent overburdening resources such as healthcare, housing and public services and the UK where 62 million people are crowded into an area only one-thirtieth the size of the USA can learn a lot from the USA. I am not scared to discuss immigration as I feel that it should not be a taboo subject for moderates like myself. If we don’t do anything about then the BNP will and they are no friends of ours! I hope that the US Border Protection will allow Bradford and Anthony to stay – after all they are only two people out of 300 million and I doubt that they are going to have loads of children!

  14. This could be the catalyst that changes the US Federal law. Let us push for it and fight and block every loop hole. America has got to grow up and this could be a good opportunity for them to prove that they can be mature about LGBT relationships. It certainly is a longtime in coming.
    I think it will be ok for the couple and that they will be allowed to stay in the USA.
    Petitions, letters, emails and the like need to be sent to the people in power to show our support for the couple and our support for the very important and very necessary changes to US Federal Law in favour of the LGBT Community. America is lagging way behind the rest of the developed countries in LGBT matters.

  15. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 8:54am

    Absolutely shameful. Blatant discrimination by the state.

    Comes to something that we have to put up with the ‘all Gay men are promiscuous’ when we aren’t but now when the state decides we can’t be together, just to clearly to satisfy the bigots, it’s totally disgusting!

    Shame on the US – sort it out! Stop discriminating and celebrate love – whoever it is.

    1. Come on Jock…. you have to put this into perspective!

      If some one comes and squats in your home or apartment you would say fine! Stay! no matter what they said gay – straight – married, you would let them stay while you paid the mortgage or rent. Or would you be a realist and say OUT!

      That is the way the immigration department see’s it! even if only one of them is there illegally the fact is they are there illegally – have no status not supposed to be there and is telling them to leave! “discrimination” or “love” have no bearing.

      1. He is trying to become a legal american citizen which if they were a straight couple would ok and done ages ago this is pur discrimination.

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:42am

          Exactly, Hamish!!

        2. Absolutely wrong. If they were both straight they would not be allowed to marry each other either! This law applies to all persons, not just homosexuals. It will obviously impact homosexuals more though just like a smoking ban will impact smokers more but applies to non smokers also.
          This marriage law is discrimination for the good.

          1. If this is an example of your logic, I suggest you go back to kindergarten sometime soon.

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 2:57pm

            Pepa I will pray for you.

      2. Galadriel1010 12 Aug 2011, 6:10pm

        He’s not there illegally and never has been. To follow through on your analogy, one of them was already renting one of the rooms. The policy is that people already living there can have their partners move in with them. Unfortunately this only applies if you’re straight. Blatant discrimination that they’ve said they’re not going to apply any more… one day

        1. I read the article again to day… and yes my mistake! it says no criminal record never in the country illegally. I must have been half asleep when I read it so sorry on my part !

  16. Dear America “We the people” means ALL of the people. There is a reason that some of us laugh ourselves cross-eyed whenever you claim to be the land of freedom, justice and equality.

    1. Many of us here in the US cry ourselves cross-eyed when we hear politicians and pundits also claim that we’re the top of the heap since we are the land of freedom, justice, and equality. Sadly, this seems to apply only to rich, white, straight, male folk.

  17. The ruling as unfortunate as it is for the couple sheds little light on the reason for his deportation. Married or not, if recognized by the state they live in, would not influence the department of immigration if his partner is classed as an illegal alien in the US. PN does not give any facts about if this is the case? If it is the case then they are i a catch 22 situation! Same sex marriage is tied up in the courts and unless he’s legally allowed allowed a green card will be hounded until he leaves.

    1. “Mr Makk has no criminal record and says he has never been in the country illegally.”

      It’s right there in the article Steve

      1. I read the article again to day… and yes my mistake! it says no criminal record never in the country illegally. I must have been half asleep when I read it. When I am wrong I admit it! so sorry on my part! Hindsight is wonderful and had I been more astute would not have commented on this article.

    2. Galadriel1010 12 Aug 2011, 6:12pm

      According to other articles I’ve read he’s followed all the rules. He’s been living there for 19 years on various visas, jumped through all the hoops regarding property ownership to give him a better chance of getting permanent residence and is the carer of a US citizen. All of that combined should be enough to allow him permanent residency, even with the discriminatory disparity between gay and straight couples.

  18. Michelangelo 12 Aug 2011, 7:03pm

    Good

    Why doesn’t the other one move to Australia?

    People might like a country or pay taxes to its government, but if they weren’t born there then they don’t really belong there.

    1. In another article on the same subject, if he moves to Australia then he’ll lose his health insurance which as a AIDS sufferer, he can’t afford to give up. So it’s not as simple as you seem to think it is. This is really someone’s LIFE at stake here and we aren’t talking metaphorically.

    2. Why doesn’t the other one move to Australia?? So YOU’D be perfectly happy if the person to whom you were married and whom you loved had to live thousands of miles away, would you?

    3. The American citizen partner has AIDS, which is a current restriction/ban when it comes to immigrating to Australia. This *legally married* US couple is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Australia won’t take the American, and America wants to boot out the Australian. The real kicker is that once a person is deported from the US, they are not allowed to return for any reason for a solid 10 years.

    4. So the Queen’s husband doesn’t belong in the UK? Interesting idea.

    5. Will they be sending Murdoch back now?

  19. @Keith

    “I can tell you that a monogamous pair of male homosexuals may contract human papilloma virus from the fecal matter in the anus. Do you deny this?
    This is nature saying WRONG!”

    No, it is simply suggesting (if true) that there may be some risks for either homosexual or heterosexual couples who engage in this.

    Your weird obsession with anal sex is overlooking the fact that many gay people don’t like it while many heterosexuals are well up for it.

    Hence much gay sex is perfectly safe and straight sex (even monogamous) can be risky.

    You really should try a bit of logic.

    1. There are no sexually transmitted diseases that a monogamous pair of heterosexuals can catch so you are incorrect on that point.
      Homosexual male copulation is always anal and the vast majority of active male homosexuals copulate. Therefore my perceived obsession with anal is merely a reflection of the issue at hand and a consideration of it’s unclean nature. Were homosexuals incline toward the belly button or some other orifice, my attention would shift to the appropriate orifice. If you are averse to discussuion the anus and the unavoidable dangers of homosexual acts, perhaps you may be a closet heterosexual. It may be time for you to ‘come in’!
      As for the HPV, it is true that it can be contracted by heterosexual or homosexual monogamous couples, further proving the danger of such practice.

      1. Hmm. It always amuses me when I find people who (a) insist that anal sex is dirty and repulsive and at the same trime (b) refuse to believe that some gay people really genuinely don’t much like it.

        You come close to the “no proper Scotsman” argument by accusing me of being a possible closet straight. I hasten to add that my lack of interest is purely a matter of taste and has nothing to do with morals. Of course some people have a fulfilling sex life without copulation as you quaintly put it. – Otherwise, let’s face it, lesbian sex would be physically impossible.

        Besides oral sex is a form of copulation. And all the stats I have seen suggest this is far more popular among gay men. Which in a way is your problem. These days most heterosexuals – including the most “respectable” ones like to lick pussy or suck cock.You know that if you were to try to pillory gay men for this you would be laughed out of court.

        So you fixate on anal sex as the apparel “Achilles Heel”….

        1. Most male homosexuals have anal sex, fact! Anal sex is dangerous even amongst monogamous couples, fact!
          Clearly , nature does not intend for this repugnant act to take place amongst humans.of any sexual orientation, not just homosexuals.
          Since copulation is intercourse, oral sex is NOT copulation. Who told you this? Nevertheless, oral sex is also unclean and poses grave risks. The only natural, clean safe way to have sex is with a monogamous opposite sex partner. If you have to wear a sheath as protection from loathsome diseases, this is a clue that you should not be doing it!

          1. “Nevertheless, oral sex is also unclean and poses grave risks.”

            And what might those “grave risks” be – assuming that the couple don’t sleep around?

            I suspect a lot of happily married heterosexuals would query you on this one…

            I think you’re just moving the goalposts to suit your own prejudices.

            Next I suspose you’ll be telling us that masturbation (solitary or mutual) makes you go blind…

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:03pm

            Darling, how would you know? It is in fact a common method of birth control amongst heterosexuals.

      2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:02pm

        Singapore recently legalised anal sex for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals, because it is very popular amongst heterosexuals as a method of birth control. There were concerns that husbands could be blackmailed by their wives if it remained illegal.

  20. Apologies to all for letting myself be led astray by Keith – away from the main subject.

    It really is quite vile to see a devoted couple forcibly separated in this way, and should be a badge of shame to all Americans. If 19 years of devotion and living together – longer than many hetero marriages, and willingness to be legally married isn’t proof of commitment then I don’t know what is. Had they been a heterosexual married couple then they would almost certainly have been allowed to stay together.

    What is more, if you believe that committed gay relationships ultimately deserve no respect then you also forfeit the right to criticise gay people who fail to show the same level of commitment as you would expect from a married couple. You can’t have it both ways

  21. Apologies to all for letting myself be led astray by Keith – away from the main subject.

    It really is quite vile to see a devoted couple forcibly separated in this way, and should be a badge of shame to all Americans. If 19 years of devotion and living together – longer than many hetero marriages, and willingness to be legally married isn’t proof of commitment then I don’t know what is. Had they been a heterosexual married couple then they would almost certainly have been allowed to stay together.

    What is more, if you believe that committed gay relationships ultimately deserve no respect then you also forfeit the right to criticise gay people who fail to show the same level of commitment as you would expect from a married couple. You can’t have it both ways

    1. @ Casper
      You asked what risk there is from oral sex for monogamous male homosexuals. Two that I can confirm without research are oral cancer and HPV which is transmitted from the penis. Also The HPV can be transmitted orally from the rectum via residue of excrement!

      1. OFFS Keith, nothing could possibly compare with the exrement that you keep writing in your obsession with anuses. Try to remember this discussion is supposed to be about a couple of long standing being forced apart by a law and get your head out of the sewer.

        1. ‘excrement’ even – or, to put it more bluntly, sh!t.

        2. You yourself asked me the question “And what might those grave risks” be – assuming that the couple don’t sleep around?”
          if you don’t like the answers, why ask and then complain when I state the facts. I speak only truth and facts. It is all checkable, but you won’t as you know I am correct. It always comes down to moral issues in the end since that is the basis of discrimination. It is unavoidable.

        3. “You asked what risk there is from oral sex for monogamous male homosexuals. Two that I can confirm without research are oral cancer and HPV which is transmitted from the penis.”

          Wikipedia suggests that “in a minority of cases – lead to cancers of the cervix, vulva, vagina, and anus in women or cancers of the anus and penis[1] in men. ” This suggests that if monogamy is no protection then pretty much any kind of sex is potentially risky – apart perhaps from masturbation.

          “Also The HPV can be transmitted orally from the rectum via residue of excrement!”

          I wasn’t even thinking of that – in fact I don’t think that falls within most people’s idea of oral sex – though trust you to find a link…

          Also if one member of a monogamous couple can infect the other through sex then (presumably) the virus has to spread in other non sexual ways.

          As far as I can see the “risk of cancer” posed by oral sex is linked to viruses which can also be spread by vaginal sex.

          1. Monogamy certainly is no protection from unclean practices. I have said this all along. The only sure way (to be safe) is the intended way, monogamous married partners having vaginal penile intercourse. Depart from this and you are asking for trouble. There is no safe way for homosexuals to have sex of any sort. This is because it is un-natural.

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:07pm

            Darling you need treatment yourself, I will pray for you.

            Oral and anal sex are very popular amongst heterosexuals.

  22. @Keith

    You really need to follow your claims through.

    From all that I have read, HPV can be spread by vaginal as well as oral or anal sex. If as you claim that it can be spread by monogamous gay sex then it could equally be spread by monogamous vaginal sex.

    I see no evidence to suggest that the risk is significantly different.

    So by your own admission the only really safe sex would be either masturbation or other kinds of totally non penetrative sex.

    I can’t see the great mass of either straight or gay people – married or not buying this line….

    1. Not true. HPV cannot be contracted by a man and wife in a monogamous relationship that excludes anal and oral sex. As I have said previously , abstinence before marriage and exclusive penile /vaginal sex (no or nor anal) is the only way to avoid STDs inc HPV.

      1. For your perusal…
        The best way to prevent HPV is by being sexually safe and smart. That means abstaining from sex, or, if you are sexually active, only having sex in a monogamous relationship. Always use a condom–though even that may not always prevent HPV– and try to minimize the number of sexual partners that you have…
        http://www.livestrong.com/article/26185-hpv-contracted/

        1. Compared to most of the rest of what you have posted, this almost seems sensible advice – monogamy if you can manage it – and if not be careful.

          The article again points out that HPV can indeed be passed on through vaginal intercourse, so basically monogamous gay and straight couples are in the same boat as it were.

          1. Yes it can be passed on through vaginal intercourse by a carrier. You only become a carrier by practicing non vaginal intercourse sex. that is my point. Start clean and stay clean and there is nothing to fear. Abstain until marriage then practice ‘straight’ sex exclusively if you wish to be 100% confident that you will not contract HPV or worse!

      2. “Not true. HPV cannot be contracted by a man and wife in a monogamous relationship that excludes anal and oral sex”.

        This is pure incoherence, given that it is well established that HPV can indeed be passed on by vaginal intercourse (at least according to everything I have read).

        So either:

        (a) a monogamous couple practising oral sex and one practicing only vaginal sex will BOTH be at risk. or

        (b) neither would be at risk.

        Or another question. If a man passes on HPV to his partner or wife through oral sex (or any other means), how would he have contracted it in the first place, given that they are monogamous?

        And since you insist on being ludicrous. How does one conduct HPV through mutual masturbation. (You insist by implication that thuis has to be high risk)

        I hate to be reduced to this basic level but you seem determined to stay there…

        1. To be passed on vaginally, one person must actually already have the virus. To illustrate. A heterosexual couple that abstain from sex outside of marriage then marry and practce monogamous vaginal sex , excluding oral and anal sex, cannot contract HPV via sex.
          Regarding mutual masturbation. I did not state that HPV can be contracted that way , however, it is possible that bodily substances could enter through a hand wound if one person were a carrier but not in the case of a monogamous couple that only practice ‘straight ‘ sex.

          1. “To be passed on vaginally, one person must actually already have the virus. ”

            Exactly the same applies for any other type of sex. – certainly for oral sex – Think about it…

          2. “Exactly the same applies for any other type of sex. – certainly for oral sex – Think about it…”

            Which highlights the need to practice safe sex. The only way to do this is by abstaining until marriage, continuing in monogamy and not indulging in oral or anal sex.

      3. Don’t forget women can get cervical cancer from having vaginal sex. Better for them to avoid sex altogether. But then if men DON”T have sex, they have a higher chance of getting prostate cancer. So the only way to avoid cancer then is for men to have gay sex, if we are using fear of disease as the determinant for having a sex life.

  23. @keith

    “The only way to do this is by abstaining until marriage, continuing in monogamy and not indulging in oral or anal sex.”

    It doesn’t matter what type of sex people have. You can only pass on a sexually transmitted disease to your partner by first having had sex with someone else (or through a bad blood transfusion etc.).

    It doesn’t matter whether it’s straight vaginal sex, or oral or anal sex. If you haven’t had sex with anyone else you (logically) can’t pass it on to your partner.

    An unmarried couple who followed the same rules would be just as safe. I’m all for marriage, but you know, it’s not a magic wand…

    1. “It doesn’t matter what type of sex people have. You can only pass on a sexually transmitted disease to your partner by first having had sex with someone else”
      Shigella, Ecoli and salmonella are a few of the dangers in ‘rimming’ (far more prevalent in homosexual males than heterosexual)These can be contracted from a person that has never had sex since they reside in excrement..
      Also, marriage is just a contract so in truth it will not prevent infection any more than simple monogamy as you say. I am simply endorsing the mariage arrangement, straight sex and prior abstinence to be 100 safe from STD’s.

      1. Also, Hepatitis A can be passed on by oral sex even though the carrier may not have had sex before. Therefore oral sex is dangerous even between the monogamous.

      2. OK then so perhaps rimming isn’t recommended if you want to be 100% safe – though I’ve never seen the appeal of this personally anyway and haven’t thought about it as you obviously have

        For “vanilla” (as it were) oral sex you just have to observe basic hygene – which I would suggest for any type of sex.

        1. The point I am making is that the ONLY way to be 100% safe is straight sex between a man and woman.. Also, basic hygiene whilst useful, does not guarantee STD protection.
          Also , lesbian sex is NOR safe and lesbians can contract hepatitis amongst other diseases…
          http://lobotero.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/dangers-of-lesbian-sex/.
          Regardin monogamous lesbians engaging only in cunnilingus. There is a risk of Hepatitis B which persons can carry without ever having had sexual contact. It can then be contracted via cunnilingus.

          1. @Keith

            “There is a risk of Hepatitis B which persons can carry without ever having had sexual contact. It can then be contracted via cunnilingus.”

            According to Wikipedia:
            “Transmission of hepatitis B virus results from exposure to infectious blood or body fluids such as semen and vaginal fluids”

            So if oral sex caries a risk then so does vaginal intercourse.

          2. “So if oral sex caries a risk then so does vaginal intercourse.”
            This is correct and in this case even monogamous couples can be at risk.

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:10pm

            Sounds like the only way to be safe is for no one to ever have sex…

      3. Keith is really totally anti-sex. That in itself seems very unhealthy.

  24. My heart goes out to Bradford and Anthony. We need to do what we can to build a world where this nonsense will be nothing more than an unpleasant memory.There a places on earth that are way ahead of the US on human dignity; we can make it happen here.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all