dayumm saidIt's unacceptable to have bad values and be intolerant and proselytize (especially for profit) and then justify them with false equivalencies to non-profitable actions.
You're still being slippery and avoiding the fundamental issue. It's correct to say "It's unacceptable to have bad values and be intolerant and proselytize them." Adding "especially for profit" and qualifiers about justifying them is not what makes it wrong; the behavior was wrong before you added that excess and irrelevant qualifying baggage.
Even without the "baggage" (thus, the word "especially"), it's more relevant than any false equivalency you can conjure. After all, it's a "possible thread derailment" for a reason, n'est-ce pas
The guys "who condemn gay couples who have an open relationship" do no more than shake their heads and fists and type pointless conjecture on internet boards as their chaps chafe. The "Right wing Christians being intolerant of gay marriages" do that... and a lot more.
If ever there was an irrelevant qualifier in this forum, it's the targeted use of "gay" people against open relationships... as if they're some kind of swing-voter holding "open relationships" in the balance. Now that's what I call "slippery!"
Nations and states aren't banning open relationships because some gay guy has a greater tolerance for lactose than an occasional Ashley Madison highway billboard. Kids aren't bullied in schools because some gay jerk believes they might be having non-monagamous relationships with their crushes. Having a consensual open relationship doesn't allow employers to fire you in more than half the states in the USA. No gay person has successfully used the "open relationship panic defense" in a court of law to justify bashing somebody. There's no gay baker or photographer being sued (or, suing, for their "deeply held belief" rights) after refusing to serve somebody celebrating their open relationship. And there's no gay dogmatic organizations justfying anybody, gay, straight or otherwise, turning their noses at somebody living a consensual open relationship.
Who's the gay/lesbian Scott Lively, Tony Perkins, Phelps family, Pat Robertson, or Maggie Gallagher of anti-open relationships? Who's the intolerant gay person with authority telling people open relationships will lead someday to the destruction of civilization, or men marrying bee colonies? Is there some "Gays and Lesbians Against Under-Committed Marriages in America (GLAUCOMA)" or something that remotely parallels the Family Policy Council, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, NOM, etc., etc.? Where's these gay people using millions of dollars to push "Prop 69"s on the ballot that define "relationships" as "one person and some other person"?
Because if all we're railing about, this so-called "fundamental issue" (without the "funda" part, apparently) is The Dude Folding Pleated Khakis at the GAP in West Hollywood thumbing his nose at some happy swingers on an electronic forum somewhere, well, we've got ourselves an effort to make a pebble equal a globe, just because they're both round!