The federal government spent $432,000 to study gay sex apps.  I never knew that gay sex even required an app; I always thought two guys, a tub of vaseline, and a big bottle of tequila was all that was needed.  But apparently:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent nearly a half a million dollars studying gay hookup apps such as Grindr. The government awarded $432,000 to Columbia University to interview gay men who use GPS dating apps and determine whether it increases their likelihood of engaging in risky sexual behavior.

Gay sex between men, by definition, is "risky sexual behavior."  I apologize in advance for getting specific about it, but gay sex usually means anal sex  between two (or more) men, which by far is the #1 way to catch AIDS.  Because of the inherent disease factor of feces and ease of tearing of skin within the anus, anal sex is also a great way to catch hepatitis.  

Men who engage in anal sex have an increased risk of contracting the hepatitis C virus because the fragile tissues of the anus are more likely to tear and bleed. There doesn’t have to be a lot of blood to pass on the HCV virus. Even microscopic tears in the skin that don’t appear to bleed can be enough for transmission.

If the government wants people to stop catching AIDS and spreading hepatitis, it has to persuade men to stop having anal sex with other men.  Legalizing gay marriage, and teaching the joys of gay sex in schools, books, and movies, won't do it.

The project conducted interviews with 60 gay men who had used mobile apps to meet sexual partners in the past three months.

$432,000 to interview 60 gay guys?  That's over $7,000 per interview!  Where did this money really go?

Finally, the project looked at a possible “smartphone-based sexual risk reduction intervention.”

What are they thinking?  Perhaps text messages that will pop up on your screen saying "Dnt hv anl sx!"

My tone is light, but the topic is serious.  The government is promoting a lifestyle that includes, at least where gay men are concerned, a kind of intercourse with a very significant chance of catching terrible diseases.  That's why all sexually actively gay men are still, as of this writing, banned from donating blood (although there is a dangerous politically correct movement to change that).  The risk of tainted blood from gay men is simply too high.

But having promoted this alternative lifestyle, the government wants to find a way to make it safe.  Even in relationships where two men are monogamous, there is still risk, because anal sex leads to tearing of tissues in an area that contains diseased feces, which can easily cause infections.  If the government really wanted to make it safe, they would discourage all people, straight and gay, from having anal sex.

One more lesson from this story: the perils of government money spent on "medical research."  Some of you may have heard that the powerful speaker of the New York assembly, Sheldon Silver (not a Republican – can you guess his party affiliation?), was just arrested in part for funneling money to "medical research" to a doctor who provided a means of paying kickbacks to Mr. Silver.  So "medical research" can lead to corruption, and from this story you have also seen how "medical research" can lead to wasted taxpayer money.

Here's a radical idea: get government out of the entire business of medical research, even in worthy fields such as cancer and heart disease research.  There are businesses in the private sector, called "pharmaceutical companies," whose sole purpose is to create medicines and devices that will save lives.  They spend billions of dollars on research every year.  And the best thing is – they spend their own money, not taxpayer money, doing it!  Because these companies need a return on their investment, they are also more likely to spend money on useful research topics that will yield medical breakthroughs.  I would bet that none would spend $432,000 to talk to 60 gay men.

With our trillions of dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities, and private companies already working on medicines, medical government research is a luxury we can no longer afford.  Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should do medical research?  By limiting the government to its core functions, we can reduce corruption and improve our economic standing.

Pedro Gonzales is editor of Newsmachete.com, the conservative news site.