Ake- I have just spent over an hour trying to sort out exactly what statistics show. I began with your link for backwoodsman, which seems to have nothing to do directly with the CDC. (which, incidentally is spelled Center for Disease Control on its own site. It's easier to search that way.) Your link was to a study done just in San Francisco at this place:
"Center for Research and Education on Gender and Sexuality
San Francisco State University" It is interesting, but has little relevance to CDC statistics. The CDC site itself is a HUGE conglomerate of stats, mostly in PDF format and hard to sort thru for definitive statements about any specific claim. The closest I can come is =http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html, which talks about rates, ethnic groups...etc.

They say this:"HIV Incidence (new infections): The estimated incidence of HIV has remained stable overall in recent years, at about 50,000 new HIV infections per year2. Within the overall estimates, however, some groups are affected more than others. MSM continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, and among races/ethnicities, African Americans continue to be disproportionately affected."

That says what we all know.. that unprotected MSM continues to be the greatest concern. It also says rates are not generally increasing except in certain categories.

All very interesting... and always a matter of concern- however- (you knew there would be a however, hmmm?)... this thread was a focus on RIGHTS, not gross statistics. Once you state the obvious, that HIV is a problem in certain groups, you go on to extract concepts that are NOT data about the implications and relevant societal attitudes. "Defining---or REdefining" marriage is a matter of subjective opinion, not a causal factor in HIV transmission. Allowing marriage 'might' be studied as relevant data to compare infection rates, but I am unable to find any studies on it.... and as I have said before, the logical conclusion is that a stable relationship which includes marriage seems likely to reduce infection odds, not increase them.

In an important issue like this, it is well to confine your concerns to how to reduce the overall danger thru education, medicine and prophylaxis, rather than insinuating that "dangerous people should have restrictions on basic rights that others have". You have said as much, while avoiding saying directly that they should be quarantined like lepers once were, tested involuntarily by 'someone', or .... have a red letter on their foreheads.

I still can't read minds, so I can't guess what you might do if you had legislative power.... but it worries me to imagine.

Bill D., testing a different browser