Help ban circumcision in America...

D_Malcolm_MacPudd

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Posts
2,214
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
73
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-recognize-it-human-rights-violation/T1k7FxNf

heres a petition if signed by enough people will be considered by the White House to be accepted as a human rights violation. A few things its about
-Does not end religious circumcisions(that's protected by 1st amendment)
-bans circumcision WITHOUT individual consent
-parents can not make the decision to mutilate their child's penis


sign the petition if you are for keeping your foreskin and stopping genital mutilation as an acceptable practice in America!

 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Get a life will you? Where is the mandatory requirement I'll sign that petition?
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You do realize that Jewish tradition has the male child circumcised on the 7th day after birth...a government forbidding this practice *is* interfering with the practice of that religion.

Christianity and Islam, too.

Governmental interference is not a catch-all solution to societal problems.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The petition is badly worded. It tries (and fails) to explain a complex topic in a sentence or so (a petition shouldn't seek to explain the topic - look at the threads without number on circumcision on this board, and the tens of thousands of words written). It muddles its own message with the idea that religious groups should have an exemption (while this may well be a necessity in the US context today it is a distraction). I'm not all that clear what the petition is asking for. What is the meaning of a "born child?" Is the "meanwhile" intended to imply that the solution is only temporary?

The petition is garbage. It needs an appropriate group to put forward a clearly phrased request for a debate.
 

johnweek1

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Posts
686
Media
0
Likes
1,765
Points
373
Age
38
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
No... because I like being circumcised and I think dicks that are circumcised look a lot hotter then uncut ones. Furthermore I require less maintenance in the hygiene department and my orgasms rock my world so I am less then concerned with whatever feeling I "may" have lost.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
I agree with Jason. Stupid, marginal petition, but I have to challenge some of these responses...

You do realize that Jewish tradition has the male child circumcised on the 7th day after birth...a government forbidding this practice *is* interfering with the practice of that religion.

Christianity and Islam, too.

Governmental interference is not a catch-all solution to societal problems.

Not only did you apparently not read the original post, but this isn't an adequate response even if there weren't a religious exemption. The First Amendment does not unconditionally protect the rights to perform religious acts that affect other people. Obviously, I can't be like, "yo, I'm a Shankologist," and stab you. Freedom-of-religion issues are much more complicated when they involve acts on others, even children.

Whats wrong with circumcision? I love a cut cock more than uncut. Sooooo very glad i was circumcised at birth.

Ya, call me kooky, but I want my weewee to remain foreskin free

No... because I like being circumcised and I think dicks that are circumcised look a lot hotter then uncut ones. Furthermore I require less maintenance in the hygiene department and my orgasms rock my world so I am less then concerned with whatever feeling I "may" have lost.

I don't want to be condescending, but guys, think this through to one more iteration. You're happy to be circumcised, and that's great. Your reaction to the law seems to be, "I strongly prefer being circumcised, so why have this law?". The idea of the law is to protect the ability of men to get what they prefer -- because different people have different preferences.

Consider it this way:

Uncircumcised, happy: Good
Uncircumcised, unhappy: Inconvenienced, but can 'fix'

Circumcised, happy: Good
Circumcised, unhappy: Pretty much out of luck

If varying preferences exist, all else being equal, it makes more sense to give someone the choice. That's the underlying idea, even if the petition is stupid. How is the underlying idea not sound?

(johnweek1: Most uncircumcised guys would express the opposite sentiment. Like, the hygiene complaint seems silly to me, when it takes two seconds to rinse in the shower, which I assume you do too. Also, having a sensitive glans and using the foreskin during sex/masturbation is something I really don't want to lose. I'm not saying I think your preferences are necessarily unreasonable at all...they're just different. I'm not against infant circumcision because I think my preferences are "better," but because I think my preferences aren't universal, and shouldn't be unnecessarily forced.)
 
Last edited:

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Not only did you apparently not read the original post, but this isn't an adequate response even if there weren't a religious exemption. The First Amendment does not unconditionally protect the rights to perform religious acts that affect other people. Obviously, I can't be like, "yo, I'm a Shankologist," and stab you.

But, the way it was worded *did* include a religious exemption. Religions which predate the US government tend to be allowed an extremely wide berth. And, the person who wrote it obviously did not understand the religious requirements. I was merely trying to educate him.

As for the rest, I actually understand your logic, and agree with your conclusions. And I'm a happily circumcised Christian. Imagine that!

I still believe that government interference is not the answer, though.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
But, the way it was worded *did* include a religious exemption. Religions which predate the US government tend to be allowed an extremely wide berth. And, the person who wrote it obviously did not understand the religious requirements. I was merely trying to educate him.

As for the rest, I actually understand your logic, and agree with your conclusions. And I'm a happily circumcised Christian. Imagine that!

I still believe that government interference is not the answer, though.

Sorry...sometimes I get so used to reading certain arguments that I project them where they aren't being made. You definitely didn't say anything about the freedom of religion being absolute in these cases. My bad, and I tend to agree with you about being skeptical of government interference. Then again, it's hard for me to know what to do with cultural practices when they're wrong but bizarrely durable.
 
1

185248

Guest
I'll sign the petition that bans circumcision threads :)
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
I feel like pretty much every debate in world history has involved a bunch of repetition while a few minds changed. Maybe this is the Political Science major in me talking. I think that's just the pace of change. Even on something where culture has changed super-fast (like gay rights), the debate feels painfully repetitive...yet, it seems to work, no?
 
Last edited:

D_Malcolm_MacPudd

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Posts
2,214
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
73
The petition is badly worded. It tries (and fails) to explain a complex topic in a sentence or so (a petition shouldn't seek to explain the topic - look at the threads without number on circumcision on this board, and the tens of thousands of words written). It muddles its own message with the idea that religious groups should have an exemption (while this may well be a necessity in the US context today it is a distraction). I'm not all that clear what the petition is asking for. What is the meaning of a "born child?" Is the "meanwhile" intended to imply that the solution is only temporary?

The petition is garbage. It needs an appropriate group to put forward a clearly phrased request for a debate.


fails? really? its people like you that take a very simple topic and muddy it up with your own agenda. The way its worded is specific instead of "ddduh ban all circumcision".
"born child" so not relating to abortion(which some consider mutilating children in its own right) and as for "meanwhile" i cant explain simple transition words to you. (although i will it means "currently happening right now") You are the essence of why democracy always fails in this country. You sweep this under the rug as if its not a "big" deal, just like most people do. This is why nothing really changes. There is nothing wrong with that petition and btw it wouldnt allow me to post what i originally wrote so i had to shorten it down. thats why its alittle choppy in the paragraph but you should get the main point. you are over analyzing it honestly, its black and white and oversimplified on purpose. (people dont want to read 800 words about foreskin). im sorry you didnt understand it.
 
Last edited:

D_Malcolm_MacPudd

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Posts
2,214
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
73
You do realize that Jewish tradition has the male child circumcised on the 7th day after birth...a government forbidding this practice *is* interfering with the practice of that religion.

Christianity and Islam, too.

Governmental interference is not a catch-all solution to societal problems.

religion? read my petition. as for govt inference-in this case it would be a solution
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
fails? really? its people like you that take a very simple topic and muddy it up with your own agenda. The way its worded is specific instead of "ddduh ban all circumcision".
"born child" so not relating to abortion(which some consider mutilating children in its own right) and as for "meanwhile" i cant explain simple transition words to you. You are the essence of why democracy always fails in this country. There is nothing wrong with that petition and btw it wouldnt allow me to post what i originally wrote so i had to shorten it down. thats why its alittle choppy in the paragraph but you should get the main point.

Egg, it is the imprecise use of language, beautifully illustrated by this petition, which ultimately causes problems.

Your intention is clear. You wish to outlaw body modifications for children, children being defined as those who have not yet reached the age of adulthood, because at that point they can make their own decisions as to whether or not they wish to have that modification, i.e. a circumcision.

But, that's not what the petition said. Go back and read it critically.

Further, the bit about the religious exemption did not take into account the actual practice of the religion. Abrahamic religions specify that the circumcision be done, and that it be performed on the 7th day. Consequently, governmental restrictions postponing that date *do* interfere with the free exercise of that religion. It is not merely a question of circumcision, but also the associated timing.

If you consider this petition to be well worded, and sufficiently clear that its meaning is *crystal* clear, then I weep for the future. I know you're in college. Pray tell, what is your major?
 

D_Malcolm_MacPudd

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Posts
2,214
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
73
Egg, it is the imprecise use of language, beautifully illustrated by this petition, which ultimately causes problems.

Your intention is clear. You wish to outlaw body modifications for children, children being defined as those who have not yet reached the age of adulthood, because at that point they can make their own decisions as to whether or not they wish to have that modification, i.e. a circumcision.

But, that's not what the petition said. Go back and read it critically.

Further, the bit about the religious exemption did not take into account the actual practice of the religion. Abrahamic religions specify that the circumcision be done, and that it be performed on the 7th day. Consequently, governmental restrictions postponing that date *do* interfere with the free exercise of that religion. It is not merely a question of circumcision, but also the associated timing.

If you consider this petition to be well worded, and sufficiently clear that its meaning is *crystal* clear, then I weep for the future. I know you're in college. Pray tell, what is your major?


you said my exact intention. wtf i didnt say it to your likings is that the problem? i dont get you people. you know i wrote it specifically like that for you overanalysissys out there and you still have a problem with it.

Also your point about 7th day Jewish circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with my petition, i said anything to do with a religious practice is exempt. But there are alot of us Christians and Atheists out there who were circumcised because it was "popular". As my mom once said "it just looks prettier". Ask any woman in America and they generally say cut looks prettier....until they meet an uncut. Then they change their minds.

Also i implore you to rewrite it for me, i dont care as long as it gets written. write it like the elite scholar you all are please-for i am not. thank you. just dont muddy the cause.
 
Last edited: