ake- you call my 'bet' "beneath contempt", even after acknowledging that I am known for trying to be fair. Almost everyone who reads your remarks gets the impression that you are against certain behaviors, rather than just the disease. If this is incorrect, please clarify and *I* will modify my language. Your suggestions about compulsory testing and monitoring don't make clear exactly HOW officialdom would determine who is to BE tested, and what would happen to anyone who tests positive.

Quite apart from this, you have not replied in any way to my point about an improper use of the word 'purpose'. Your belief that homosexuality is 'unnatural' seems to be a driving force behind your concern to employ compulsion against men who are identified as homosexual... or even any man who engages in MSM.
There are many diseases in humans that need new medical treatments and concerns, but you define HIV/AIDS as somehow .... immoral?... as well as sad & dangerous because you see the vectors as 'unnatural'. Continued citing of statistics (which are quite debatable, according to different sources) does not 'prove' that your basic approach is fair... so be careful how you describe my opinions as unfair.

You also cite mostly UK (and sometime African) statistics, but since HIV is a world-wide issue, and people travel a lot, any sort of compulsory testing/monitoring opens up a Pandora's Box of international law and compliance.

Be assured, ALL of us... even those who criticize you... hope for controls and cures, but education and science are the first choices of most of us, not Draconian, compulsory 'testing' of.... who?