[MikeyB806]

Well, there have been studies conducted that could certainly persuade one to believe that circumcision can prevent HIV transmission in hetereosexuals and not so in homosexuals. E.g.,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids

True or not, if homosexuals perceive it as true, then that would make sense as to why Gay Francisco would make this such a priority; though I tend to agree with the poster who said that homos just like the way uncut dicks look.

[hellbender]

In that study, the risk of catching HIV by circumcised men is still very high. Even condoms don't "prevent" HIV. Why should babies be circumcised "to prevent AIDS", anyway. The circumstition lobby keeps coming up with new excuses to practice this barbaric custom. It used to be claimed that circumcision prevented penile cancer. Well, penile cancer does not strike young men, is vanishingly rare, and like HIV, us often associated with STDs and other evidence of promiscuity. I'll say it again: abstinence and strict faithful monogamy prevent HIV and all other forms of STDs. Nothing else does.

The biggest practicers of genital mutilation, male and female, are Muslims and certain primitive African cultures. That ought to make you think. The New Testament actually preaches against circumcision.