There is no such thing as ‘safe sex’. Studies upon studies show that with the increase of ‘safe sex programmes’, STD’s and HIV increases. Condoms DO NOT off full protection.

Abstinence is the only effective way to prevent the spread of HIV, and not using condoms which do not protect from the full range of STD’s today.

Whether people choose to adhere to abstinence is their choice, but I wish such people would take responsbility for themselves if they find themselves with an STD or HIV- afterall people choose to act on their attraction, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.

I couldn’t agree with you more. That certainly seemed to be the case with the “Disco Days” of the late ’70s.

As for Tim’s medical explanation, that clears things up some.

History teaches us that calamities (i.e famines, the Black Plague) did not occur just because of one factor.

I tend to think that the isolation and homophobia that society gave gay men before Stonewall and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1970s played an impact as to the behavior of some in our community in sexual matters.

Some gay men may have mistaked sexual irresponsibility with freedom and the ability to self determine our lives.

I think that if the gay community had time to mature to the level we are at now before the AIDS crisis, it would not have hit us with such a huge impact.

I’m trying not to see your comment as a deliberate insult or provocation. But I will answer your words:

It is considered a “gay disease” because in the beginning – and even today – it disproportionately impacted gay men. There are a number of reasons why this hit the gay community first in the US.

The most obvious reason is that some methods of transmission are more effective than others, and for circumcized men the greatest risk is through receptive anal sex. Because most Americans are circumcized, and because that sex practice is predominantly homosexual, viola: the place the virus spread was in gay men.

I lived in a fraternity house in the 80′s. Let me assure you that if HIV was spread solely through promiscuity or careless habits, it would have been a straight disease.

WHY is it a “gay disease?” because gay men are so promiscuous and careless with their habits?

In the US and Europe, AIDS is still largely a gay disease. Though the majority of new contractions of HIV seems to be shifting out of the gay community, it is still disproportionately impacting gay men.

AIDS seems to have moved into the black community to a great extent. I don’t know how much of that is due to “the down low” or how much is due to other social factors (disproportionate incarceration, a lack of available men, economic pressures, drug culture, pimp culture, racism, institutionalized homophobia – especially in the black church, poorly targeted information campaigns, assumptions about AIDS being a white gay disease, circumcision rates, etc.). Whatever the reasons, that’s where it’s going and I certainly hope that black churches are listening when Kay Warren is talking.

Many politicians claim pro-gay credentials for supportive positions on AIDS because many of those who oppose funding or help did so because it impacted gay people first. In other words, because they did not fall victim to anti-gay arguments, they are viewed as not necessarily hostile to gay people. Though some (Bill Frist, for example) were supportive on HIV issues solely out of health concerns, most of those who led the charge on this issue did so because of being supporters of issues impacting gay people. So I’m perfectly willing to let the early supporters of HIV/AIDS issues be called “pro-gay”.

I am very thankful that she is speaking out for all who are infected. It is a much needed voice.

Please, somebody educate me. This is very frustrating, especially when politicians claim to be “pro gay” because they support AIDS research; etc.