Read the article. The plan is everyone in the world *with HIV* should take ARVs, not everyone regardless of whether or not they have HIV.
Her wording is a tiny bit misleading, but she goes on to talk about testing to identify all HIV patients, so clearly they don't mean the whole world. That would just be stupid and a waste of money.
If no one has sex with multiple partners, homosexual sex need not be prohibited. If you were arguing from logic instead of bias, you'd already have realized that.
Besides, this is a non-solution. Any "solution" to a problem that effectively boils down to "what if the problem magically didn't exist?" is a waste of time.
Furthermore, your phrase "our sex crazed world would rather people sicken and die than exhibit some self control" is rather insulting and a logical fallacy called false dilemma. It's possible for me to not want to force everyone to follow the same sexual practices, and still not want the HIV virus to spread.
You had me at 8%. That sounded high until I did the math, and realized that I was paying 25% while working at a minimum-wage job.
Thanks for the great explanation, been wanting more details about the Japanese system.
When I first supported Obama, I remember him saying (sorry, don't have the exact quote) something along the lines of "to me, marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am open to the possibility that I could be wrong and realize that in the future."
To me, it sounded like code for "I'm for gay marriage, but I want to be president, so I'm going to say I'm against it. But I'm really for it, nudge nudge wink wink."
I wouldn't have voted for him if I actually believed he was against equal rights.