Posted on 08/23/2009 6:12:04 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
Well, unnecessary mutilation of genitals to appease a god is pretty backward, however much one might want to spin the barbarity.
On that, I am absolutely opposed. Male circumcision is a minor modification of the male genitalia which doesn't impede any normal function. Female circumcision truly is genital mutiliation which does impede the normal functioning of the genitalia. There is no medical reason supporting its practice and volumes of research opposing its practice.
I see male circumcision like getting ears pierced and female circumcision as getting an ear cut off. Because of the difference in the severity of the consequences, I think it is reasonable to treat the two situations in a different manner.
Spin it how you like, but God was not just looking for a gift of appeasement. The laws and restrictions that were laid down to follow in the scriptures were more obviously related to preserving the people and their health than to appeasing God. The problem here is that the people were backward in the ways of health and self preservation in a lot of respects. The New Testament made it clear that a lot of the restrictions that were given were no longer necessary (like in what we could and could not eat). It’s also true that by then the ability to prepare food, cleanliness and health / medicine had also advanced. This is my own interpretation, but the texts support it.
You’re inability to see or understand a thing does not make it untrue... and a British accent, contrary to Hollywood’s presentation of it, does not prove one’s intelligence.
Just so you know, I have a British accent in my head so when I’m typing it does makes me feel smarter.
And, last night I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.
But that's just how I roll.
NTTAWWT
I need face. I need personality when it comes to those "things."
BTW, "How do you guys walk around with those things."
:)
Didn't read the full thread (yet) but I'm sure something was posted regarding Lainey.
Yes, Daffynition I know you're one of my kind I still had to ping ya.
In my limited sample
Uncircumsised men make much better lovers.
Circumcision Peels the Potato; Neutering Juliennes It
Man: We had him circumcised.
Woman: Circumcised?
Man: Yeah, whatever you do with dogs. You know...
Woman: Neutered?
Man: Isn't that the same thing?
--Central Park
Overheard by: Nettle
via Overheard in New York, Aug 21, 2009
three percent of the population is queer, so make every male pay for their future sins??? please...
Especially since there is no evolutionary viaility...
OK, here goes.
An old Indian chief notices that when his grandson was born, he was circumcised. The old chief decides he’s going to get circumcised too.
He goes to a doctor and asks what it will cost. The doctor says $500. The old chief says “Ug, too much.” So he goes to a second doctor. He asks the doctor what it will cost, the doctor says $250. The old chief says “Ug, too much.” So he goes to a third doctor. He asks the doctor what it will cost, the doctor says $100. The old chief says “Ug, too much.”
So the old chief decides he’s going to take the matter into his own hands, so to speak. He takes out his dong, puts it on a log, and gives it a mighty whack with his trusty tomahawk. When he looks at the result, he says “Ug, too much”.
Circumsize all adult gay males first.
Since AIDS may be cured before these boys come of age, why not target the high risk group who is already spreading AIDS through sex?
I always say, you don’t get what you don’t pay for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.