Akenaton, before we phase back into the link between AIDS and being gay, there's a different question still on the table. You have claimed, many times, that a precedent for denying a full range of civil rights to homosexuals exists in that we deny certain rights to certain other people, mostly drug addicts, felons, and madmen. Besides the fact that all of these people, even murderers in prison, are allowed to marry, Amos presented arguments that seem to completely refute your position on this question. Rather than wait two or three days and then repeat yourself again, and then ignore it when Amos, one of the Dons, or I refute your comments again, perhaps you could answer this one now. It would be lovely to start taking the open questions one at a time and discussing them fully. Here is the statement from Amos again, just to refresh your memory:

The general practice of the law is to deny freedoms and rights on a case by case basis after due process invokes punitive action for actions taken that are harmful.   Psychiatric cases, under law, must be treated to due process before such denial is allowed. And thier cases are jusged individually on their own individual merits. Your position, instead, prefers to judge a whole class of people as guilty before proven innocent, and fit to be deprived thereby. This is the injustice and the violation of civility as we have encoded it that I object to strenuously.

There are plenty of ways for a homosexual--even a homosexual male--to practice safe sex with his partner, and if he enters into his partnership without exposure, a monogamous relationship will go far to keep him from exposure. Thus, he will have committed no crime of placing another in jeopardy. And if he fails to safeguard himself and his partner, then that is conceivably a tort or even an offense, which as an individual he can be sured for, or under some law prosecuted for, and take the consequences. But by denying this individual the right to claim a marriage you actually condemn him out of hand to a social milieu more inclined to promiscuity than he other wise would be, which is an offense against him justified only by some personal opinion of yours based on a generalization of very little merit. By your pre-judgement, then, you make matters worse and bring about your own most dire predictions that could be avoided by a more sane, civil and enlightened policy.

No class of people deserves to have their rights denied them a priori in the manner you recommend. If you can name one, I challenge you to do so.