I didn't miss anything in the story, but I think the story is missing some info.

If that's the only way you can defend your rant, you have no defense.

Everything you need is in the article. MRSA "normally affects only sick and elderly hospital in-patients", "taking advantage of the weakened immune systems of seriously ill or elderly patients". The disease can break out of the hospital when it gets traction on the weakened immune system of an HIV patient and is then brought back into populations with a high proportion of homosexuality, such as prison populations. That does not mean that it is spread through sexual contact, promiscuous or homosexual or elderly or Republican or any other kind. It simply means that MRSA opportunistically strikes people whose immune systems are already weakened, and that coincidentally happens to include gay mean already suffering from HIV.

Gratuitously tying a disease to homosexuality is dangerous. We saw it at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. As long as people thought that it was confined to homosexuals, there was little interest in funding research and finding a cure. It was only when the disease--inevitably--broke out of the homosexual population and struck the mainstream that there was a sudden scramble to find a cure, late in the game. We need to be smarter than that--this time around, we already know that MRSA has no innate preference for homosexuals, and there's no excuse for trivializing the situation just to try and score political points.

--Robert