It rightfully should. The homosexual agenda has greatly tweaked research money priorities.
Wrong. Cancer is number one in federal funding at $1.8 billion.
And why does AIDS get the disproportionate funding it does? According to a 1997 Kaiser Family Foundation poll of 1200 Americans, 51 percent said they think the federal government spends too little on AIDS and 40 percent consider federal spending too low compared with expenditures on other health problems like cancer and heart disease. Seventy-three percent said the government should help low-income HIV patients pay for new drugs. Source
As a libertarian, I believe the government's level of funding for AIDS or any other disease should be zero. But from a debating standpoint, I can be objective and intellectually honest enough to recognize why AIDS gets the funding it does. Perhaps your personal biases are inhibiting you from considering all the facts in context.
It's discouraging to see people still quoting that spurious Rolling Stone article as if there was any credibility to it. It was debunked before it hits the newsstands. The doctor "quoted" in the article denounced it saying that he did not say a single word attributed to him in the article. The author also admitted the main character - the bug chaser - was a fictional device, or as he called it, an amalgamation of various people he interviewed. The whole article makes Jayson Blair look like a candidate for the truth in journalism award.
But nevermind all that, it's part of the public record now. The slightly inconvenient matter that it's fiction should be no obstacle to using it to great effect in anti-gay diatribes.