How could our government risk infecting heterosexuals?

It is really only necessary to take a look at how the Reagan administration and the Congress responded
to the AIDS epidemic in the early years.  Gay activists knew that the U.S. government would never show|
much concern for saving the lives of homosexuals.  So they tried to argue - correctly- that the U.S government
should care because the epidemic would inevitably spread among heterosexuals as well.  Or at least, so it seemed
 reasonable to assume at the time.

The Reagan administration knew that a strange, new virus was at large.  Yet Reagan did not even mention the
word "AIDS" for 7 years, and instead slashed the CDC budget, almost as if for spite.

Does that seem like the conservative Right had any sensible concern for the risk of infected heterosexuals?

There were right-wing Congress persons who opined such as sentiments as "This epidemic is probably God's will,
and so be it.  I don't see why we should do anything at all to stop this epidemic."

A rational mind would have difficulty even imagining the twisted "logic" that a mind filled with religious hatred
might use. The rational mind would naturally think "Even if you hate homosexuals and would like to eliminate them,
you cannot possibly risk something that might backfire and affect the entire population."  

The "logic" used in a religiously poisoned mind might be more to the tune of "American will never inherit the
Kingdom of God as long as homosexuals are tolerated."

C. Everett Koop, a member of the Religious Right and who knew that group intimately, once confessed that for many
members of that group, "If they could pull a switch and eliminate all the homosexuals, they would pull that switch."
Koop, one of the few "heroes" of that era, said that he could not understand how Reagan could ignore AIDS in
the fashion that he did.

What Koop could not understand is what this website tries to explain here, not really all that difficult.

No one did more to make the Religious Right a powerhouse in American politics than Reagan did.

When Reagan actively courted people like Jerry Falwell, the Baptist televangelist, it was off the radar of
the American media how Falwell once opined that heaven would rejoice when gays were annihilated.
Falwell tried to deny making such a statement, which led to a lawsuit, because it had been recorded on tape,
which Falwell did not want to believe.  Falwell lost the case.

If Reagan felt as Falwell did, and had advantages such as being able to appoint a CIA director who had
conveniently also been his campaign director, how far could someone like Reagan, or Nixon before him,
go in being "God's Little Helper" with self-assurance from the Bible itself that nothing could go wrong,
because "surely shall they be put to death and their blood shall be upon the land."?

 The skeptic should not be asking the "conspiracy theorist" to explain the kind of madness that
a vicious and deluded government might use.  That question should be posed to the vicious and irresponsible