Circular reasoning, infectious disease vectors, and personal responsibility.

The crux of the human rights approach to HIV/AIDS advocacy has always been that prohibitive laws turn already vulnerable people into un-apprehended criminals and thus seemingly compel them to take great risks as they are fugitives living on the fringes of hostile societies. Therefore HIV infection is almost inevitable, directly as a result of this unsupportive environment.

I've sold this idea for years with increasing discomfort each time I repeat it.

The connection between prohibitive laws such as the buggery law and a disproportionate rate of HIV infection in the demographic such a law affects, I feel, has not been sufficiently explored or articulated. I do not believe it can or should be accepted at face value.

If it is that we say gay men are 3 times more likely to contract HIV than the general population and a law exists to restrict the sexual activity of this group, is it not illogical to ask that this law be repealed? Wouldn't this law, in principle, represent a barrier between this vulnerable population and the rest of society?

Before you attack me with blind rage, think about it for a second.

It is intellectually dishonest to present this causal relationship between sodomy laws and high levels of HIV to a critical mind as it will immediately be rejected for being paradoxical.

Unfortunately what has happened in HIV/AIDS advocacy has been a deliberate obfuscation of the facts in the argument in order to advance what I feel was a poorly thought out strategy to advance LGBT rights under the HIV banner. Nothing may be entirely wrong with that as I reflect on it, especially in light of the hostility with which the mere mention of LGBT advocacy is received, but at the same time the argument is circular at best, and illogical at worst.

A true human rights approach to LGBT advocacy would speak to the universal rights to protection from harm to which every human being is entitled. Within such a philosophy sodomy laws are anathema as they unfairly highlight and persecute those that need the most protection. Perhaps it is a little naïve and idealistic to believe that we could ever exist in such a Nirvana where people no longer cling to superstitious mumbo-jumbo about Sodom and Gomorrah and Gayliens in the sky bent on global conquest, and respect people for who they are, and not who they sleep with, but that desire is certainly grounded in facts and there is indeed a legal precedence for such a challenge to be made. Lawrence v Texas et al have demonstrated that sodomy laws are unconstitutional and not in keeping with the general spirit of democracy and as such have been on the chopping block in successive civilized societies for the better part of the past 2 decades and yet, rates of infection among gay men continue to rise not just in the developing world but also in countries where sodomy laws have not been on the books for over a century!

Whereas I resent the notion that gay men would be presented as infectious disease vectors should the veil of the Human Rights Approach to advocacy be lifted, especially since this prejudice has led to innumerable instances of victimization, science has proven that the function of the colon and rectum in removing moisture from faeces and absorbing it into the body (like a sponge) makes the anus particularly susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV simply because of its biological function.

This fact in combination with the hedonistic and often fatalistic culture that has typified gay men for centuries is the real cause for gay men's vulnerability to HIV and unless this is dealt with all forms of advocacy will continue to be fruitless, merely perpetuating the existence of career advocates, well aware of the views and facts I have just shared, yet still focused on securing the next grant, planning the next prevention workshop, street protest or multi-million dollar conference knowing that the strategies will fail.

Throwing money at HIV has not stopped people from getting infected despite all the information out there.

It is up to the non-infected to remain that way, and the infected to stop giving it to other people. It is in fact a two-way street despite the rhetoric of one notable advocate (still being accused of carelessly spreading the bug) that tried to convince me that the onus is only on the non-infected to stay that way.

Gay men must take responsibility for their actions and stop living lives perpetually evading sexual diseases or passing them on carelessly.

Unless we take heed the HIV- gay man will be a rarity (arguably this is already true in some places) and there will be nothing left to fight for.