When an organization names someone as its Director of Issues Analysis, presumably it is because that person has the skills and training to analyze issues in the way that benefits the organization and its purview.
That being so, look at how the American Family Association's Issues Analyst, Bryan Fischer, is analyzing HIV/AIDS and its transmission:
This is stunningly dangerous rhetoric. And it's not dangerous to LGBT people—it's dangerous to everyone, spanning the globe and all demographic lines.
But while stunning and dangerous, it's not so out of line with the general anti-science outlook by which the American Family Association and its actors all operate. Think about the "ex-gay" movement. Or climate change. Or the nature of sexual orientation itself. In these instances and many more, credible science is always a suggestion, at best. Consensus positions are framed as being born out of "liberal bias." All too often, they put their personal opinions either right beside or, more typically, highly above all research and knowledge in order to promote whatever agenda they want to push.
There's also an undercurrent of the "victim" game that groups like the AFA and folks like Fischer so love to play. With something like marriage or nondiscrimination laws, they pretend that mere tolerance of fellow human beings who happen to be LGBT and who happen to be taxpayers is some sort of unfair burden onto them. Under this "war on science" motif, it's data itself that they turn into a targeted slight. Embedded in Fischer's science-rejecting worldview is the idea that the overall consensus of scientific research all over the world is somehow skewed in order to push some sort of political agenda. Judging by his second tweet, he likely believes that those dirty, promiscuous, popper-using gays are the only ones really contracting AIDS and that the scientific consensus is designed to hide this fact. I've heard him make similar suggestions in the past. Because he presumes he knows better than the World Health Organization. After all, he's an anti-LGBT activist employed by the American Family Association.
In a more perfect world, Bryan's dangerous idea is something that all of us could agree to be dangerous, offensive, beyond the pale, and deserving of repudiation. But in our world, I know that would never happen. The AFA will not come out and pushback against their own Issues Analyst's woefully misguided teachings because they never take responsibility for any of their dangerous views. I've never once heard this organization apologize or even correct itself. Which speaks to the other idea that is typically in play: aggression. The AFA and most all of the anti-LGBT organization work like brakeless steamrollers rather than carefully aligned Smart cars. Everything pushes forward with staunch self-assuredness and an overall sense of infallibility. They never admit that the likes of us might be right about something. They never see a need or reason to tone down their own house, no matter how harmful the overheated fireplace installed in its center.
It's up to us to see and smell the smoke before misguided people get hurt. It shouldn't be our burden, but it has to be.