Male Infant Circumcision

[Keranu]

I think you are a little too upset since you don't have a reason to defend your infant circumcision. Regardless, I appreciate the humor.

I am not upset at all....I didnt even show a hint of being upset in my post  . I have not reason to be upset I have a perfectly fine working penis! No complaints here...Im glad Im circumsized lol I'd hate to have to look down at that ugly foreskin all the time! 

I think this post is proof that you're upset .

In regards to foreskin being ugly, this always strikes me as interesting considering the foreskin is something every (well, unless you have aposthia) man is born with, so to criticize something as natural as that is just silly to me. Have you ever wondered that perhaps maybe, just maybe out of the 80% of uncut males in the world, that one of them thinks a circumcised penis looks like a mutilated mess? Would you argue that all circumcised penises look better? If so, I challenge you to visit here (non-porn site, just so mods know). If we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good, but I still dare you to take a look at that page .

Whether you're happy that you don't have a foreskin or not is not the main issue of my argument though. My arguement is that the choice to be circumcised should have been yours instead of your parents. There are several cut men who are extremely displeased that the decision wasn't given to them, such as Howard Stern.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Again, I believe you are taking one thing that I said, exaggerating, and ignoring the rest of what I said.

What did I exaggerate or remove from context?

Quote me where I ever said I would never let a new religion practice infant circumcision.

You first.  Show me where I intimated that you said something to that effect.

I've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it. And again, I don't necessarily approve of religious infant circumcisions to begin with, but I would allow it for reasons I've already mentioned.

You've stated repeatedly that you believe ritual circumcision to be more acceptable for established religions, so I pointed out the hypocrisy in treating religions differently (your own religion was once unestablished, yet I doubt you'd argue that it was any less valid).  They all have to start somewhere, so I see no reason to hold a new/minor religion to a higher standard - if members of a new religion have to show sincerity before you'd deem circumcision to be equally acceptable, then why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?

Would you argue that all circumcised penises look better?

I'd say that the penis (cut or not) is unattractive and utilitarian in appearance.

[Keranu]

Again, I believe you are taking one thing that I said, exaggerating, and ignoring the rest of what I said.

What did I exaggerate or remove from context?

You were exagerrating the "might" in my "I might not be as keen of it until..."  sentence and ignorning that I don't personally approve of religous infant circumcision (just allow them under law).

Quote me where I ever said I would never let a new religion practice infant circumcision.

You first.  Show me where I intimated that you said something to that effect.

"Equally ridiculous is you limiting its acceptability to only certain special religions."

This is implying that my "might", mentioned above, means yes.

I've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it. And again, I don't necessarily approve of religious infant circumcisions to begin with, but I would allow it for reasons I've already mentioned.

You've stated repeatedly that you believe ritual circumcision to be more acceptable for established religions, so I pointed out the hypocrisy in treating religions differently (your own religion was once unestablished, yet I doubt you'd argue that it was any less valid).  They all have to start somewhere, so I see no reason to hold a new/minor religion to a higher standard - if members of a new religion have to show sincerity before you'd deem circumcision to be equally acceptable, then why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?

Good point, but contrary to what you think I would argue my own religion when it wasn't established. In fact I don't see why I wouldn't. There were many people in the time of Mohammad (pbuh) who initially thought of him as a loon before accepting the religion he preached.

Regarding "why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?", I've already went into that in this post. So again, I am agreeing with you to degrees.

Would you argue that all circumcised penises look better?

I'd say that the penis (cut or not) is unattractive and utilitarian in appearance.

I already beat you to that:

If we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good...

[override]

I think this post is proof that you're upset

In regards to foreskin being ugly, this always strikes me as interesting considering the foreskin is something every (well, unless you have aposthia) man is born with, so to criticize something as natural as that is just silly to me. Have you ever wondered that perhaps maybe, just maybe out of the 80% of uncut males in the world, that one of them thinks a circumcised penis looks like a mutilated mess? Would you argue that all circumcised penises look better? If so, I challenge you to visit here (non-porn site, just so mods know). If we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good, but I still dare you to take a look at that page .

Whether you're happy that you don't have a foreskin or not is not the main issue of my argument though. My arguement is that the choice to be circumcised should have been yours instead of your parents. There are several cut men who are extremely displeased that the decision wasn't given to them, such as Howard Stern.

Well I infact did check out the website and man those are some fucked up looking dicks!

As much as you want to think I am upset....I have no reason to be! You are right this is not the reason why you started this topic....All in all its cool and I can understand you think it is odd that people say things of that such because ofcourse your not for circumcision or atleast thats as if it seems....So the same goes for me I am cut and always have been since I was born and cut! So for me to think that someone thinks it is right to not be, is weird for me to hear....To be frank I honestly think this whole topic is kinda weird but interesting....Another thing is that I have no reason to lie to you about how I feel. I dont know you and you dont know me...Im not getting anything out of lieing to you but a response of hey you obviously are lieing and feel this way not that way....It pertains no interest to me to not be honest with how I feel.

[Keranu]

I'm just messing with you about the whole upset thing, no worries.

When you're uncircumcised and find out that it's not the norm in your society, you tend to investigate the issue a lot. It's a very fascinating discussion for me and I enjoy everyone's debate here regarding it. You guys might not believe me, but I think even if I were cut as a baby, I'd still be against it and restoring my foreskin; I guess I tend to be rebellious.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

You were exaggerating the "might" in my "I might not be as keen of it until..."  sentence...

Consult a dictionary for the word exaggerate; I disregarded the word, since it didn't seem to be the crux of the point being made.  Subsequent posts seem to have shown that assertion to be correct, considering there's no 'maybe' to be had:

To clarify more on what I meant restricting infant circumcisions to only certain religions, the reason being is that someone could easily claim to have received revelation from god and he demanded that their kids be circumcised. I never said I wouldn't allow this, I just said I wouldn't be as open in a case like this, at least until the religion has gained more acceptance or something like that. Don't forget that I'm totally not against circumcision if it's done with the child's consent.

I've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it.

----

... and ignoring that I don't personally approve of religious infant circumcision (just allow them under law).

I acknowledged your argument of allowing circumcision solely as protection of first amendment rights in my first post after the assertion was made.

"Equally ridiculous is you limiting its acceptability to only certain special religions."

This is implying that my "might", mentioned above, means yes.

In no way is the quoted sentence equivalent to 'never let a new religion practice infant circumcision'; here's a tip: limit does not equal forbid.  Why are you arguing this wishy-washy 'might' anyway?  The whole point of that sentence was to ridicule your treatment of established religions differently than others, and you've since reaffirmed that you believe different treatment to be appropriate.

Good point, but contrary to what you think I would argue my own religion when it wasn't established. In fact I don't see why I wouldn't. There were many people in the time of Mohammad (pbuh) who initially thought of him as a loon before accepting the religion he preached.

Great.  Then your beliefs are nothing but horse hockey (Christianity is centuries older and has more followers).

Regarding "why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?", I've already went into that in this post. So again, I am agreeing with you to degrees.

That post only explains what you meant by 'significant religious tradition' and admits that there is insincerity in established religions as well.  There's nothing there that explains why established religions need not prove sincerity, nor does it advocate that everyone should prove sincerity.

I already beat you to that:

If we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good...

What exactly did you beat me to?  This doesn't answer the question of which looks better: cut or uncut.

[Turbo D]

I think that "god" would be against circumcision. This "god" that the bible speaks of seems to hate when humans modify their bodies. How can a circumcision be "a covenant between man and god"? If "god" is/was a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, then why would it create something faulty? Why would it create something that needed revision? How does cutting off a piece of skin bring you closer to it?

[override]

I think that "god" would be against circumcision. This "god" that the bible speaks of seems to hate when humans modify their bodies. How can a circumcision be "a covenant between man and god"? If "god" is/was a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, then why would it create something faulty? Why would it create something that needed revision? How does cutting off a piece of skin bring you closer to it?

I have to agree but in the end its not gonnna matter if your circumsized or not that determines whether or not you get into heaven....Im a christian man and have 2 tats, I have pierced my body, but all that is overlooked in the end! Otherwise this is a good point to make if your against circumcision....

[Joe Redifer]

Im a christian man and have 2 tats, I have pierced my body, but all that is overlooked in the end!

You can get into heaven just as long as you regret all of your sins.  So you can do anything you want during your life, just regret it all real quick-like at the end you'll be A-OK.  God is pretty stupid and he is easily duped.

[override]

WOW! I cant believe you just said that......Thats fucked up....God should be GOD...Always caps! Your a fuck nut if you think "GOD is pretty stupid and he is easily duped!"

[OldRover]

Any man who willfully has his son circumcised deserves to have his penis and balls cut off.
Any woman who willfully has her son circumcised deserves to have her clitoris cut off and her vagina sewn up.
That's about all I have to say on the subject.

[Joe Redifer]

Thats fucked up....God should be GOD...Always caps!

SHIT!  Oh well, I always knew I'd burn.