Here you go... Gee that took all of about one search in the Lancet Journal of Medicine to find results. The Lancet is considered to be one of the "core" general medical journals. Which is where this was published. Hardly a "right wing think tank who advocates abstinence only sex-ed"

I have no dog in the fight here I just choose to look at all of the facts and not have a knee-jerk reaction based on whatever preconceived ideas I might have.

If someone wants to be circumcised as an adult that's their choice. No one is making them do it. Just like no one is making them have unprotected sex. I very much support the use of condoms or even (Gasp!) monogamy.

Obviously this is not a magic bullet cure for aids and no one is claiming that it is. I'm amazed that people who argue so angrily and ask me to post proof don't show me the same. I'm more than willing to maintain a civil discourse. But you have to first be intellectually honest. My sources are a reputable journal of medicine, the World Health Organization, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on Hiv/Aids. What's yours?

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Circumcision-Found-To-Prevent-HIV-Spread-2463-1/

http://www.thelancet.com/

@ Peeves:

According to the World Health Organization and the National Institute of Health it does. I would call a documented (in the journal of medicine) 53% reduction of the chance of contracting HIV significant.

What happens is that the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse allowing these cells to enter the blood stream.

Sorry to confuse you with the facts, Peeves.

Kerri Strug vaulting with a sprained ankle to win the team gold in 1996 still sticks with me.

Socialism is always the answer. It has worked EVERY single time it's been tried. Right?

What about Tupac? or Elvis?????

Love to see how Adam brings out the best in everyone.

It seems to me that the smart thing to do would be to stay away from politically slanted posts as a whole. The whole argument of "if you don't like it f- off and find a new blog or start your own" is very backwards. Neatorama is a business and the people who visit the site are customers. I've never understood why a business would do things to alienate their customers. It's rather funny that Adam is the only one who this theme continually arises. Everybody else consistently posts excellent material here. When Alex posts political items he at least does it in a way that isn't interjecting his own political views.

I as a customer have come to love Neatorama as a daily visit. And I believe that Adam is ruining what I have come to love. There are obviously many loyal readers here who don't want to have to leave this site. Adam seems to be doing just that, driving away customers.

Just a thought for you Alex... I would ask Adam to keep your customers in mind with his posts.

For all of you who say "he's" brave for going through all of this and enduring all of the negativity. They are the ones making this whole thing into a media circus. If they wanted to have a child, fine. however introducing themselves into the spotlight in such a way is the only reason they received so much flack. I feel sorry for this child the same as I feel sorry for any child thrust into the media spotlight and used for a political statement. Had they lived their lives and had a child the same as everyone else and made a wonderful introduction to life with loving family and friends, the child would be so much better for it.
I just pray for the child's sake they don't continue with this Jerry Springer episode for too long.

That was cute. Happy Fourth!

Adam, I can always tell your posts before I even read them. The only person you're fooling about not having a political agenda is yourself.

I have a leg 1 inch shorter than the other, which causes a lot of problems in my knees and hips (and my back) I still don't know that I would do this.

Guess it's about time someone wrote something contrary here. I for one could care less if two gay people choose to get married. (none of my business) However It's sad that the laws of individual states can be overturned by 5 people. This ruling for no other reason was a bad one because the supreme court has no business creating laws as they see fit. That's not there jobs. The proper course of a judicial ruling is to clarify gray areas within the laws. Californians voted on this already. Why is the supreme court overturning laws of individual states? According to the constitution each state has a right to govern themselves as they see fit. Federal laws are to be created through congress not by judges.

Before you label me as anti-gay or a bigot. I have several very dear gay friends and support them whole heartedly. I am just sad about the legal aspect of this ruling.

That was absolutely horrible. I'm sorry Adam but I just couldn't get past the terrible singing. I guess I try to celebrate those in society who try to make a better life for those around them rather than those who just exist to live off of other people ie. social security.

Maybe you took too much lsd while at Berkley.

@ peeves:

The point is to remember the best in anyone. Nobody has a perfect father. It's no surprise that there's always someone who has to find the cloud in every silver lining.

Happy fathers day and thanks to all of the wonderful dad's out there.

I just wish Stanhope would find some things that are actually neat to post. Obviously politics and religious bashing are his forte. It's really rare that I find his posts anything other than offensive at best. Personally I can't stand O'Reilly, but this is not neat at all. Nobody else on this site posts this kind of rancorous material. Adam, you need to realize you are posting to a broad spectrum of people and although you obviously will never make everyone happy it's a pretty safe rule to stay away from religion and politics. Follow Alex and Miss C's stellar examples.