Spend half the research money on some programs that change the behavior, or, better yet, let the consequences for the behavior run their course,
and you’d see much better results in reducing the incidence of AIDS and HIV.
I think a lot of prevention activities have happened over the last 25 years -- prevention and education programs are all over the place. And there's been a significant reduction in incidence (at least in western countries) since then.
But as far as viewing it as consequences for bad behavior, no, I won't agree with that. I've lost family members to smoking, I urged them again and again to quit, but they chose not to. I couldn't see myself stand back and say "well, those are the consequences of your behavior".
There were a couple people I knew in high school who later died of AIDS. When I heard they were ill, I didn't think "oh, now you're suffering the consequences of your behavior". I felt badly for them, I felt badly for their family (a mother having to bury her son is one of the saddest things that can happen -- even if the son was gay and died of AIDS).
I agree that gay activists are obnoxious, offensive, and 100x more bothersome than most other disease treatment advocates. And I agree that the amount of money spent on HIV/AIDS is out of proportion to what's spent elsewhere, and I know that's due in part to PC.
But I can't take the next step and insinuate that because someone was stupid enough to have receptive anal sex that society should treat them differently from anyone else who contracted a disease due to lifestyle choices. Just because we all know that Larry Kramer and other AIDS activists are [insert insulting term here] doesn't mean the person who suffers from a lifestyle related disease doesn't deserve compassion and treatment. That's true whether the lifestyle related disease is smoking-related cancer, AIDS, diabetes from obesity, whatever.