Ok, first off, fuck Freud in his overrated, patriarchical asshole. Can we be sure love is not just an illusion, a trick played on us by tradition, centuries of mythologizing, and a residue of 80 years of movies and 60 of television's happily-ever-after fairy telling? Are we really bound to rise above the 'damage' that has been done to us by family and society, only to join them in the ranks of monogamous, puritanical faithfulness? Is marriage really the goal? Is someone who has lost the ability to believe in the possibility of love really mentally ill? Are all happily single people insane?

This is not an argument for casual sex, I'm just seriously confused about the direction you are going with this. I don't think love is for everyone. I don't think sex is for everyone. There are many gay men in the world who will have neither. Some will only have sex. The lucky ones who get both will continue to preach about how everyone should be like them or they will ruin the community, disgrace the 'law-abiding' homos with their queer, polygamous perversions. They will brag about their soulmate and spout off every cliche thing about love a straight person has ever recorded. They will exchange vows, rings, pay for a party and a honeymoon and be subject to every problem straight people deal with, which will give their lives a brand-new sense of familiarity since they have been forced to process these things: divorce, cheating, infidelity, chastity etc. in a straight paradigm all their lives.

I suppose there needs to be a spectrum set from monogamous fidelity to reckless emotionless casual sex. Oranize these terms on a scale of desirability, to yourself and the queer community.
Monogamous fidelity, monogamous infidelity, polygamous fidelity, polygamous infidelity, open honest monogamy, open dishonest monogamy, partner-swapping, 'seeking a third', seriously dating, casually dating, single and looking, single and not looking, hookups, public sex, phone sex, webcamming, looking at profiles.