Andrew Sullivan complains that in a recent column on an allegedly new strain of HIV, Washington Post writer Richard Cohen "made several factual claims that I know no solid evidence for," among which was Cohen's claim that "a portion of the gay population--maybe 20 percent, [gay writer Charles] Kaiser estimates--conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting." Sullivan demands, "Can he provide any data backing this up?"

Leaving aside whether you think ten, twenty, or one-hundred percent of homosexual activity is "just plain disgusting," what data would convince Andrew Sullivan? Just four years ago, even gay writers were weirded out by the disclosure that Sullivan, an HIV-positive homosexual, advertised for anonymous "bareback" sex on seedy websites. It's not Cohen's admittedly guesstimated statistics that bother Sullivan, but any suggestion that the sexual practices of some gay men are reckless and gross.

"The bald statement 'unprotected sex is reckless' is erroneous," Sullivan writes of Cohen's pedestrian assertion. "If two men are HIV-negative and in a monogamous relationship, unprotected sex, i.e. what human beings have always called 'sex,' is not reckless. It's responsible and way more intimate and pleasurable than the alternative." Full-blown AIDS, which thousands of men following this line of reasoning have come down with, isn't very pleasurable.

Here are the facts. 70% of all HIV cases in the U.S. are in the male homosexual demographic. The second highest demographic is amongst IV drug users.

Gay males comprise about 3-4% of the population. Obviously, if the HIV rates were proportional, only 3-4% of HIV cases should be amongst the gay male population. Therefore, gay males are engaging in behaviors which are conducive to contracting HIV. You can dub the behavior reckless, stupid, suicidal, homicidal, whatever, or conversely call the behavior enlightened, modern, mature, behavior which celebrates diversity, whatever, but it's behavior that incurs negative consequences.

Well, no shitt Sherlock. There is obviously more blood involved with backdoor penetration.

Heh, that's not the point though. Andrew Sullivan is glibly trying to justify that which is morally unjustifiable: promiscuity within a high risk demographic. That type of behavior is suicidal, homicidal, and selfish. I'm not arguing that A.S. is intrinsically evil, I'm simply saying that numbers alone suggest that the gay population is generally more promiscuous than other groups. The shedding of blood does not singly account for the disproportionately high rates of infection in that demographic.

This is a life and death situation. People need to stop acting like they're victims and need to start acting with temperance. Andrew Sullivan's anger towards Cohen is misguided. Anything that encourages people to behave responsibly should be praised, not attacked.

Could somebody explain to me why Andrew Sulllivan is thought of as a conservative writer? The man solicits for a re-inactment of the mountain man/Ned Beatty scene in Deliverance in seedy magazines on a weekly basis and he is still considered a mainstream conservative. The next time he is on Meet The Press the moniker should read Degenerate Writer instead of Conservative Writer. Conservatives need to choose their friends a little better. Jeeesh.

Who cares, but out of their business. If they want to have a.s... so be it. Let them, worry about yourselves.

"Truth",

I think the reason why some people are concerned with the business of homosexuals, is because their sexual practices are destructive, and they are more likely to spread sexual disease than any other demographic.

Not only do we as humans want to see our neighbors live healthy and prosperous lives, we also want to see our children grow up in a world that is not filled with rampant disease, a world that we see in Africa. Although the spread of AIDS in Africa is not neccessarily due to homosexual behavior, people are desperately trying to find ways to curb the disease.

I am not anti-gay or homophobic, but if homosexuals are going to engage in risky behavior, they should protect themselves. AIDS in America is generally a homosexual problem, and not only does it kill, it also drives up healthcare costs, as well as forces our government to devote tax payer dollars to fund research for it.

Gays can have all the an*l sex that they want, but if my tax dollars have to go to fund research to cure a disease that they are spreading, then I say no.

Aids is a "government" sponsered virus

Could it be any more evident that America is slowly creeping toward being a Third World country?

In another fifty years, the U.S. might be known as something else entirely.

And, we'll have a weakened political system run by spineless, pandering, self fulfilling politicians to thank for it.

Truth,

Seriously, I have never once read a post you wrote that had a strong argument or semblence of logic. They have nearly always been based on ad hominem logical fallacies and your personal opinions and emotions. You write like the lemming that you are,

"Who cares, but out of their business. If they want to have a.s... so be it. Let them, worry about yourselves."

I want my friends to live long and healthy lives. Fighting HIV/AIDS is something that we should all be concerned about, and we need to encourage people to behave responsibly until we find a cure. If you can't see that, if you're so calloused and apathetic, if all you can resort to is the same post-modern liberal cliches such as "anything goes" and "who am I to judge?", then you are more clueless than I thought. I'm so thankful that people that think the way you do continue to lose elections.

"Could somebody explain to me why Andrew Sulllivan is thought of as a conservative writer?"

Sure. He's anti-welfare state, pro-life, and fiercely supports the war on terror.

I like him. It was great to see him destroy Noam Chomsky on Bill Maher's HBO show several months back. His comments advocating unprotected gay sex are just stupid, however.