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”?