It's a covenant between G-d

This is exactly the kind of backwards homophobic logic I'd expect from circumcision advocates! They'll go to any lengths to prove their barbaric blood ritual has some sort of "health" or "hygienic" value.. but this particular argument fails even the most basic test of logic!! If the HIV risk is highest in gay men, and circumcision has been shown INEFFECTIVE in this particular group, so what could possibly be the reason to indiscriminately mutilate ALL boys at birth.. thereby eliminating the choice for them to consent (or, more logically, dissent) when it actually becomes relevant in their lives?! I guess the only explanation is that old habits (and old ignorance) die hard.. and lots of babies get mutilated in the process... (And in case you are still unaware of just how harmful circumcision is, do a quick search for "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis".)

Hard to belive in the year 2009 people are still mutilating their babies with this barbaric practice that belongs in the dark ages. Covenant with God? I think snow white and the seven dwarfs is more creditable than that nonsense!

who is a Ph.D. researcher, assisted in many thousands of autopsies to determine what chemicals and pathogens and parasites, viruses, and bacteria, etc. were present in disease states and then she connected the dots. The common denominator in HIV and AIDS patients was the HIV virus and benzene in the body. No benzene, no HIV, no AIDS. So reducing exposure to benzene and petroleum distillates is a key factor is reducing the risk of getting infected with HIV if exposed to the virus which can stay viable on surfaces for 24 hours. HIV can also be transmitted sexually. It is the finding of the UN that circumcised males are less likely to transmit HIV if infected since the folds of the foreskin of the penis harbor a lot of pathogens that cannot be cleaned anymore effectively than a belly button (navel). There are some things I agree with the UN on and this is one. Reducing the risk factors of contracting HIV are all important, including male circumcision. What was good enough for Abraham and his male descendants is good medicine for all. God wishes people health above all things and He would not tell people to do something that symbolized a covenant with Him that would lead to more disease instead of less disease. God encourages heterosexual sex rather than homosexual sex because he wants people to be healthy. Syphillis which is a normal intestinal floral spirochete in sheep is a dangerous STD in humans. There is a special place in hell for the male perverts who sodomized a sheep and then passed that spirochete onto a woman and the human race. By the way, the HIV virus is so small that condoms cannot prevent infection since the HIV virus can pass through the condom like beebees through a chain link fence.

It's obvious that the US would come out against circumcision because any thing anti Jewish is in. If it was proven till now that it was safer why now do they say its not. Let's forget the percentages; sex without a foreskin is obviously cleaner, no place for those germs to hide. HIV also comes about with unclean needles which are nothing to do with circumcision. And if we are talking about percentages I would like to know who is more liable to get AIDS, the one who gives or the one who receives, or as they say the top of the bottom. My guess is if the one who gives is circumcised he has less chance to get AIDS but the person who receives anal sex has a higher chance to receive AIDS, did they check that out in their tests. They also say that "Gays' can't change there sexual orientation but others have proven they can. To be on the safe side get circumcised and use a condom, then it's like a bottle of kosher wine with two seals.

This is a good example of study with a poor design and wrong conclusion (or at least what th media reports is not what the dat showed). HIV virus is passed with ejaculate, and can invade through mucus membrane (rectum/oral cavity) or similar tissue like the cells underneath the foreskin in unircumcised males. The study showed (as nearly all other studies) that circumsicion protected the "insertive" partner, but not the "receptive" (exactly what you expect from biology). But since it did not protect the receptiv, they media reported it as "non protecting gays"

My guess is #3 is also anti religious

#1 circumcision was made for every one including gays.

And it's also an accepted secular practice. There's nothing "barbaric" about it, unless you use a dirty flint knife and no antiseptic.

You criticize the practice, but a certain doctor writing in the Forward - a left wing Jewish newsweekly - challenges your assumptions. He reported that he was seeing a marked increase in penile and urinary disorders among Jewish male infants whose "progressive" parents had chosen NOT to circumcise them - maladies he'd not seen in years past when virtually every Jewish male infant was circumcised. The value of circumcision as a means of reducing the incidence of AIDS resulted from studies sponsored by the WHO. Israeli doctors have been dispatched to Africa to train medical aid workers in the procedure.

falling down and breaking a hip and wearing a cotton shirt doesn't keep you from getting wet in a rainstorm. They had to pay MONEY to find this out. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Multiple, high quality studies prove that males age birth to age 5 who are no circumcised suffer very significantly higer rates of urinary tract infections and phimosis (a contracture of the foreskin that requires much more painful surgery to relieve). It also protects almost 100% againt penile cancer, and grealty reduces your sex partners risk of HPV caused disease (cancers of the cervic, rectum and oral cavity). Condoms are an iffy prevention (better than nothing), if you doubt, go to www.FDA.gov and review approval documents for condoms/contracepties including pregnancy failure rates, breakage, leakage and viral penetration rates (not quite BBs in a fence, but no iron wall either). ..search www.pubmed.gov for circumcision As for waiting, circumcision at age 1 week to 1 year is dramaticlly less painful and subject to complications thatn when done later, and especially after puberty. It is a minor surgical procedure, with minior risks and lots of benefits (as for you missing "sensitivity" I doubt this is a compliant women would have). Apart from the important religious significance, it always worth doing (and having seen quite a few religious and physician circumcisiosn, yes a Mohel is better and more qualified, and easier on the baby than a doctor).

circumcision, because it has been proven to impede the spread of HIV, at least through heterosexual activity. Male circumcision is now being practiced across the cricumference of the globe, including African tribes, many Christians, even in Europe, and 80% of Americans.

The article says 80% of American males are circumcized, so circumcision is definitely the "in" thing in America, so your paranoid allegations of anti-Jewishness fall flat. The American study did not refute that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV through HETEROSEXUAL contact, which is already proven, but that it does not prevent the spread of HIV through HOMOSEXUAL contact, which is probably true. Is that anti-Jewish? Since when was homo-sex endorsed by Judaism?

Thanks for the little analogy with the kosher wine.... now I'll never be able to drink a bottle again without remembering the wonderful imagery you were so kind to share with us!