That doesn't seem like a sane ordering of priorities.
That's more strictly correct anyhow, and assigns causation to a behavior - where it belongs - instead of a vulnerable group.
Would you mind specifying exactly what kind of “gay sex” might spread this - or any other disease - that does not equally apply to heterosexual anal or oral sex?
You cannot elevate protected groups above criticism. That's a dangerous privilege and as we see in this instance, condoning this sort of irresponsible behavior puts greater society at risk. Straight people on average are not having nearly as much anonymous sex with nearly as many partners and, ergo, not spreading nearly as much disease.
It's probably a manifestation of sexual dimorphism. The average woman is not as willing to sleep with a stranger. Not sure about how much lesbians get around though.
0. https://carm.org/homosexuality/statistics-on-sexual-promiscu...
You talk with seeming disgust about sex, I think you are.
>And allowing stigma to influence public policy decisions is harmful to the far greater majority
Yes, because if there is one thing straight people are compared to gay men it's stigmatised.
>Hiding details about outbreaks to avoid offending protected classes
The information isn't hidden - it's on the front page of BBC News in the UK where the disproportionately higher cases for gay men is. It's just unlike you they're aware that it's not a gay plague
There are a hell of a lot of people - and a hell of a lot of people who have sadly died - who would be very surprised to hear this. It's a pretty accepted view by those that study the AIDS epidemic that calling it a gay plague caused massive problems for people who weren't gay and contracted HIV.
Singling out gay men for what you have decided are immoral behaviours is exactly why there is a stigma around HIV and why people continue to fail to seek treatment.