And that brings me to my original assertion: YOU do not have responsibility nor proxy to SAY what another man can do by way of his friendships. I will apologize for the comparison to a flaw, but we CAN and DO befriend alcoholics, and we don't endorse substance abuse at all.
It's all well and good to ratchet up the definition of friendship to be this never-failing, walk-on-water, always-there sort of role, but friendship is really simple, and the dictionary.com entry captures it faithfully.
1. a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2. a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter: friends of the Boston Symphony.
3. a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile: Who goes there? Friend or foe?
4. a member of the same nation, party, etc.
A friend can have affection but believe you married the wrong woman or man. That's a pretty significant disagreement if not disapproval. A friends can be on good terms with you about seeing movies together, or working at your local food bank together, but may not have anything in common politically. A friend may disagree with you on just about anything, but unlike JUB, NOT be hostile to you because of it.
The posters in this thread who DO have friends outside your definition, or Rareboy's, anyone else's, are not 2nd class gays, are not desperate, and are worthy of respect. It is enough that gay men have an uphill struggle for respect and acceptance in the world. Do we constantly have to add to the problem by denigrating another man's definition of friendship? What on earth is wrong with just posting your own definition in contrast without imperiously ruling on another man's ability to choose his own friends? It just comes across as aggressive, arrogant, and pointless.