Apostle Paul once famously said
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
This, along with other passages, separated the ancient link between morality and circumcision. Though there could still be made arguments either for or against the practice, those arguments now stood – for Christians – in a moral vacuum.
An interesting discovery was reported this week which I believe challenges one of the anti-gay movement’s weapons in the arsenal they employ in attacking gay freedoms.
Although ex-gay ministries rely heavily on religious doctrine in their opposition to homosexuality, there is also a strong secondary message about homosexuality being dangerous and diseased – with the unstated implication that this is evidence of its immorality. HIV/AIDS is their favorite example.
But the study released this week conclusively ties HIV transmission to circumcision.
This week, researchers announced that results from a large study in Africa had determined that men who were circumcised nearly halved their risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The findings were hailed by officials from health organizations around the world who suggested that the age-old practice of circumcision may become one of the newest and most effective weapons in the fight against AIDS in the Third World.
We know that outside of the Western World, homosexuality is an almost negligible contributor to the AIDS pandemic. And we now know that circumcision is one of the most relevant factors to third world seroconverion.
If then AIDS transmission cannot be a reflection of the morality of being uncircumcised, does this not remove it also as a reflection on the morality of homosexuality? If AIDS is not (according to Paul) a consequence of the “sinful lifestyle” of the uncircumcised, can it continue to be a consequence of the “sinful gay lifestyle”?
This is specious logic. Neither circumcision status nor sexual orientation dictate a person’s sexual behaviors. Therefore, one cannot conclude that being uncircumcised alone caused the transmission of HIV. Morality is dictated by one’s behaviors, not their condition. A better argument against those who claim that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality is the clear fact that it is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease in Africa.
While this study is clearly interesting on its own, I think that trying to make an analogy between circumcision and the morality of homosexuality is misguided. Promiscuity and lack of safer sex practices are the real problem here. And clearly, any “lifestyle” can be sinful. According to your logic above, all heterosexual sex without a condom can be categorized as a “sinful lifestyle,” since it is more likely to transmit HIV than protected sex.
You’re mixing two separate issues, ritual cleanliness and medical science.
Jewish ritual hygiene practices saved many from disease that was spread through filthy conditions, even the Plague.
However, FEMALE circumcision has more been to destroy a woman’s pleasure with sex.
And the practice has created MORE hygiene and health risks for women than less.
But then, issues around men’s sex organs has always been far simpler than for women.
Plenty of what initially was ritual cleansing has also PROVEN to be scientifically beneficial.
As the opposite was proven to be true for females.
Let’s me say, that gender prejudice and politics concerning bodily functions and reproduction has become archaic in how our modern society has responded to it.
Slow in some respects with many restrictions (such as on contraception and Plan B).
Prejudice shouldn’t drive results of sound science into the ground, nor prevent it from reaching the populations most effected by disease.
Had there been more concern for Africans, and later gay men, we wouldn’t be having an infected and dying population in the MILLIONS.
But prejudice DID drive those with the most power to do something….to do nothing.
And saying their religious convictions are supportable as why, is despicable.
You’re mixing two separate issues, ritual cleanliness and medical science.
Yes, Peter, precisely.
I’m pointing out that ritual cleanliness – be it circumcision or levitical laws against pagan ritual sex-cult behavior (which I believe the clobber passages most likely relate to) – should not be part of the conversation about medical science.
Peter Ould said:
You’re mixing two separate issues, ritual cleanliness and medical science.
Peter, where might you have seen that done before? And for what purpose?
FYI, has anyone noticed that the Exodus page linked above contains empty citations for the most egregious statements? It has been up for almost two years, perhaps if they can’t find the supporting documentation by now they could remove the statements?
Yep. We ran a post exactly on that.
Does Exodus know the quotes are unsupported? And that they are completely bogus? Well, what do you think?
Does Exodus care that they have a “resource” up of answers to FAQs that is false and not supported? I think that the answer is pretty clear from the fact that it’s still up.
Does anyone wonder why I have so little regard for the national organization? It’s not (as some anti-gays come here to claim) because their “freedom reflects badly on my sin”. It’s because they have no respect for honesty at all. They really just don’t care if they lie. Nope, not a concern.