Well, look, amongst the 20 000 aids sufferers in Britain, two thirds are gay and a disproportionately large number are African (the second largest identifiable group being intravenous drug users). You ask what the consequences are of saying these things. The consequences are whatever we make of them.
You say that unprotected anal sex is the source of Aids, but lifelong monogamous couples who engage in unprotected anal sex are not seriously at risk.
You can quibble all you like, but these are not invidious distinctions, they are the case. Sure, for some people they are an excuse for prejudice. But if there were no aids, then the same prejudices would abound, with some other reason.
>
>Well, there is no causal essence to gayness or African, no inherent, hidden
>property that makes the random event of Aids more likely for "them" than it
>is for "most people".
Then you are left with some explaining to do about the epidemeology of the disease. Are you saying that it is merely accidental that two thirds of British aids sufferers are gay? Are aids charities mistaken in directing their message towards gay communities?
>Of course for many, if not most Americans, gays, drug
>users and Africans do share the inherent, hidden property of sinfulness
>which God has punished in the forms of HIV contraction.
Well, that's your spin, its not mine. I don't believe in sin, even if you do.
-- James Heartfield