Also, the antibiotic boom had lessened the fear of the old STDs, all of which were now curable. This, together with the contraceptive pill, was a huge boost to the 1960s sexual revolution, which made the 1970s a period of relaxed attitudes about safe sex. Thus, the 1980s were wholly unprepared for a new STD.

Um, during the 1960s and 1970s old STDs were showing up and coming out of the wood work. The straight community responded to this by stopping and winding down the free-love sexual revolution. The gay community refused to do this and eventually a lethal STD showed up.

The fact that the disease was first detected in the gay community is only attributable to the marginalization they already lived in.

And yet the disease has never broken into the straight community, despite decades of predictions that it was on the verge of doing so.

Nobody would have described the gay experience as "self-destructive" before the AIDS epidemic.

Um, they would describe having homosexual sex as a sin, which in this context means more-or-less the same thing as "self-destructive behavior". Similar to the way gluttony was considered a sin.

But there is another, more sinister layer of meaning beneath the description of the gay experience as a "self-destructive behavior" that they "don't want to change." You're basically describing them in the same language used to demonize drug addicts, and thereby you're disrespecting both populations. Addictions involve a physical dependence that impairs proper decision-making, and accusing them of simply not wanting to change goes against the facts and against compassion. By using the same language to describe the gays, you're falling into the gay-as-a-choice trap, which is not only a myth, but an insult to their intelligence.

The "argument" in this paragraph appears to boil down to "neither gays nor addicts have a choice in the matter; therefore, its wrong to use the same language to describe them", with a lot of boo lights and emotional language thrown in to distract from the fact that the argument doesn't make any sense even on its (rather dubious) premises.

Apart from true addictions like nicotine, ordinary people are smart enough to stop doing something that kills them.

Um, basic observation of humanity suggests otherwise.

Also social pressure applied to people doing destructive (or self-destructive) things is a great way to encourage them to stop. Telling people they can't help but do those things is a terrible way to help them.