On several instances I have seen the pro-homosexual side say that HIV isn't a "gay" disease.Generally I may agree with that but you can't help but notice in these statistics...
United States HIV & AIDS statistics summary

Stick with me here...
Now over 60% of men that catch HIV do so through "sex with men" but only 11% catch it from women. You take that and consider..
65% of women that catch it, catch it from men. On the surface, that seems rather incriminating to the normal heterosexual couple.

But...
When you consider that men with HIV outnumber women by a over 3 to one it is entirely possible, even probable, that most of the men who gave it to women are among the 20% or so drug abusers and not those having same-sex encounters.

Now when you come to that realization, how can any gay man say that HIV doesn't have a distinct "male homosexual" slant even more so than the drug angle? Especially as it relates to the disease in the U.S.

I'm open to any "reinterpretation".

According to your website:

"
An estimated 1,411 children aged under 13 were living with AIDS at the end of 2005. The vast majority of these children acquired HIV from their mothers during pregnancy, labour, delivery or breastfeeding. "

So, let's outlaw pregnancy, labor, deliver and breastfeeding, too.

For some women we should do precisely that!

If the mother was a drug abuser or there was a drug abusing parent in the home, the child may be better off taken away from that parent.

But outlawing childbirth because of that one stat among people that have a tendency to have other "issues" already, seems a bit wrong. IMHO.


Maybe mandated birth control among drug abusers is a better option. But there are people that would say that is "discriminatory" since drug addiction seems to come down hard on minorities.

Okay I did...
Vector (biology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

But it doesn't explain the fact that HIV seems to require human activity to spread. And nearly all of the transmission methods involve sex or drugs. Combining those facts with the actual statistics, how can I come up with another conclusion.

OMG!!! Did you really say that?

Guess what? Most diseases require human activity to spread.

My point is that I have heard a certain poster say that HIV isn't a "gay" disease. But U.S. transmission rates indicate otherwise. And I quote my original post...
"Now when you come to that realization, how can any gay man say that HIV doesn't have a distinct "male homosexual" slant even more so than the drug angle? Especially as it relates to the disease in the U.S."

In the U.S. it seems to be predominantly "gay biased" disease. So why would someone be called a homophobe or anti-gay simply stating that fact?

But we are talking HIV here. A disease that seems to have a very limited MO.
So Yes, I did say that. HIV in the U.S. seems to pick a certain group of people. Same-sex sexual activity participating in males, drug addicts, and their lovers.