Here we go with the the narrow Sodom and Gomorrah stuff.  Here's some knowledge:

Jewish views

Classical Jewish texts do not stress the homosegxwal aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." (See Jewish Encyclopedia on the importance of hospitality.) The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed[1]. One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, but to inscribe their names on them, and then subsequently refuse to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One major crime done to strangers was almost identical to that of Procrustes in Greek mythology. This would be the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.

In another incident, Eliezer, Abraham's servant, went to visit Lot in Sodom and got in a dispute with a Sodomite over a beggar, and was hit in the forehead with a stone, making him bleed. The Sodomite demanded Eliezer pay him for the service of bloodletting, and a Sodomite judge sided with the Sodomite. Eliezer then struck the judge in the forehead with a stone and asked the judge to pay the Sodomite.

The Talmud and the book of Jasher also recount two incidents of a young girl (one involved Lot's daughter Paltith) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness, they burned Paltith and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was eaten by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event, and her scream in particular, the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So Hashem said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see...'" (Genesis 18:20-21).


[edit] The view of Josephus
Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote something along the lines of:

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.

—Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195
and Josephus recounts that when angels came to Sodom to find good men they were instead greeted by rapists[1]:

And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population.

—Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202
He says how beautiful it was before everything was burned up, and how rich the towns were in the area. Josephus described what had happened:

Now this country is then so sadly burnt up, that nobody cares to come to it... It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that divine fire; and the shadows of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits, which fruits have a colour as if they were fit to be eaten: but if you pluck them with your hands, they will dissolve into smoke and ashes

—The Wars of the Jews, book 4, chapter 8.

[edit] Christian view
 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

There are two prevailing views of the sin of Sodom in Christian thought. One is that the destruction of Sodom was due to inhospitality, as illustrated by the gifts of God to Abraham for his gracious action, contrasted with consequences of the behavior of the city's inhabitants. First we see hospitality and the way we should act, then inhospitality in that the people of Sodom seek to mistreat the newcomers. The second view is that the cities were destroyed for homosegxwality.

Christian scholars and clerics often have good faith disagreements about the meaning of specific texts, with the writings on Sodom and Gomorrah being no different. The latter view, while being the most common in modern times, is actually the least historical. The word, "sodomy" which first appeared in the 17th century KJV was then used simply to mean wickedness. Modern scholars in favor of the "homosegxwality" theory point to two major parts of the Bible;

First, they argue that "to know" is a Biblical euphemism for segxwal behavior. Thus,

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

—Genesis 19:5
, is interpreted as a militant solicitation for homosegxwal sex. Second, they argue that homosegxwality is the "strange flesh" mentioned in the following passage,

Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

—Jude 1:7
The other view is derived from the classical Jewish perspective[citation needed], already mentioned, and other portions of the Bible. This view sees the sin of Sodom as being about general malice, xenophobia and inhospitality, and that if "to know" is intended to be a euphemism for sex, it is clearly a case of gang rape.

Thus, "going after strange flesh" may refer to sex with strangers, sex outside of wedlock, or possibly something akin to bestiality[2]

 
In a sixteenth-century depiction by Lucas Van Leyden, a drunken Lot embraces his daughter while Sodom burns in the distance.Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

—Ezekiel 16:49-50
This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

—Matthew 10:14-15
This view of the Biblical story reflects that of other ancient civilizations, such as Greece and Rome, where hospitality was of singular importance and strangers were under the protection of the gods.[2] Also in these civilizations, men were held in a much higher regard than women, in Greece women being often seen as little more than property [3]. Therefore, to demand not only a guest but a male guest be violated against his will would be seen as more of a crime than to allow women to be used to save the guest.[citation needed]

Salivating, fornicating, excruciating, enevating.

When systems are as degraded as what I am hearing here, and held that way by force, it takes massive resistance and uprising by the people to make a change.  Are you willing to shed yours, if need be?  :'(

If your piece is getting hard to bone her four times a day, there must be SOMETHING you're liking about your arrangement!

@nigerianvixen26  Musta been hard for you watching that movie sitting there all hot in the box.  Do you even remember what the movie was about? 

Yes, my lawd, cuz if you don't LEAP, you don't REAP! 

If you never take the chance, you'll never know the joy.

"nothing much....I would make him understand its not the way God created him....its out of lust and immoral thoughts and lack of self-control that has put him in that situation....if he refuses to change,I will leave him.....we will remain friends but not going to be very close as before....you never can tell what he may do when you are asleep...."

1)  You presume to know how God created him.

2)  You presume that being gay is a matter of lust and lack of control.  Do you mean to say that but for their self-control anyone would be gay?

3)  You presume that being gay means to come on to anyone without any discrimination.

I wonder how many gay friends you have that you don't even know about.

You're right but there are risks.  This from the Center For Disease Control, regarding an HIV+ mother:

Between 120,000 to 160,000 women in the United States are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Nearly one out of four of these women don’t know they have HIV. This puts them at high risk of passing the virus to their babies.

Women can pass HIV to their babies during pregnancy, while the baby is being delivered, or through Bosom -feeding. Mother-to-child transmission is the most common way children become infected with HIV. Nearly all AIDS cases in U.S. children are because of mother-to-child transmission.

Not all women who have HIV will give it to their children. Without treatment or Bosom feeding about 25% (1 in 4) of pregnant women with HIV will transmit the virus to their babies. Fortunately, a group of drugs called antiretrovirals works well in stopping HIV transmission. If women take these drugs before and during birth, and their babies are given drugs after birth, HIV transmission is reduced from 25% to less than 2% (fewer than 2 in 100). Regularly testing pregnant women for HIV and providing antiretroviral drugs if they are infected has dramatically reduced the number of children born with HIV. In 1992, 855 children in the U.S. developed AIDS, but in 2005 only 57 children developed AIDS - a decline of 93%.
----------------

This is me again.  The above speaks to places where the HIV-infected mother has access to the drug regimen.  What about all those places would she would not?  If the father is the HIV+ one, then it stands to reason that in the mother receiving his sperm to become pregnant she runs the risk of catching HIV.  Bottom line is it's a crapshoot.

That girl needs some education.  AIDS is not a specific thing, it's a complex that breaks down your immune system so that your body cannot defend itself against diseases.  Nobody really dies of AIDS, they die of some disease or diseases that were about to attack the body, like pneumonia or cancer.  So this guy, if he really did have anything and he couldn't pee, that was some infection located somewhere in his urethra, probably, NOT AIDS.  It was a cruel and selfish gimmick to play on her.

If you have to use protection for the course of your married life together, does that mean you cannot have children with him?