Yeah, I'm just an evil, heartless son of a bitch. One who has had to listen to 20 years of how "gay-hating conservatives" are the reason AIDS has taken such a toll. Remember where I live?

When somebody smokes all their life, and then gets lung cancer, I think, okay, they should have seen it coming, but I am sympathetic anyway. Under the circumstances, it would take a REAL son of a bitch to rub his nose in it. However, if the victim gets in my face, and blames me for not curing cancer, or for not inventing a cancer-free cigarette, and calls me an evil, heartless son of a bitch when I then point out the smoking problem, I'm a bit less sympathetic.

Gay men and lesbians have been denied this option [marriage]. Are you saying it would make no difference, and upon what do you base this conclusion?

Yes. I am saying it would make no difference, when we are talking about the same groups of promiscuous gay men who were the main spreaders of the disease in the first place. Lesbians tend toward commitment anyway*, and gay men who believe in monogamy are the ones who would really benefit from marriage, and they weren't a major part of the AIDS problem in the first place.

There's also a big difference between discouraging promiscuity (good) and denying consenting adults sexual expression (idiotic). If the law is stupid in its scope, then it encourages general contempt for social morality in the area in which the stupid law is exercised. The same contempt for law in general stemming from a stupid law can be witnessed by studying Prohibition.

If you are still talking marriage laws, I don't quite follow. If we have changed the subject to sodomy laws, I am in total agreement that they are ridiculous, and you touch on only some of the reasons.

As far as Africa is concerned, although this fact is often violently suppressed, the epidemic there is largely behavior-related too, with the difference that the promiscuity is more heterosexual than homosexual. Check to see how Uganda dealt with the problem, and how well it worked.

Moral outrage will not prevent this disease, nor curb the spread of this disease, nor cure this disease. Education, treatment aimed at modifying risky behaviors, and research remain our only civilized options.

Moral outrage by itself is, like you say, useless. But an amoral approach, which is the only one the Left will accept, is not that useful either. Someone has to be willing to say that certain behaviors, like drug use and promiscuity, are wrong. Current concepts on "modifying risky behavior" largely consist of telling a person with fifty sex partners that he should remember to use a condom, and telling drug users to bleach their needles. Better than nothing, but does not address the real problems.

*- What does a lesbian bring along on a second date?

- A U-Haul