Oral circumcision

[extragreen]

1) "1. a strong feeling of dislike, opposition, repugnance, or antipathy 2. a cause or object of dislike; person or thing that causes antipathy 3.
a feeling of repugnance toward something 4. a feeling of strong dislike of something"

None of those describe me. Not being interested in something is not the same as disliking, opposing, repugnance, a strong dislike, etc. I understand why you are trying to argue semantics, but it doesn't change the fact that you are homophobic and I am not.

2) That's patently false. I don't have an aversion to playing golf, I just don't have the interest to do it.

3) You're trying to compare two entirely different things. But pretend you aren't: I have a problem with torturing opposing soldiers in a war; I don't have a problem with killing those soldiers during war. One is far less harmful than the other. See how your argument doesn't hold water?

3 & 4) What you fail to understand is that I don't view a fetus the same as you do. That is why none of your analogies work.

My analogy is accurate. You have no problem using a religious ritual which causes more harm to a child than modern medical practices do. Further, that religious ritual is done to try and mitigate the harm causes by another religious ritual which serves no benefit to the child and only hurts him.

You place your religious rituals over the well-being of children. It's digusting.

1. You are in fact homophobic, because you have an aversion. Aversion def: a strong dislike or disinclination. Disinclination def: a reluctance or lack of enthusiasm.

2. Wrong, you do have an aversion, by definition. You have a lack of enthusiasm for it.

3 and 4. I understand your view rather well. You would rather see an unborn child killed than an 8 year old circumcised.

You don't know my beliefs as well as you think. On a personal level, I totally disagree with how the metzitzah is performed in your linked article. I also disagree with Judaism as a religion. But that's their business, not mine nor yours. And you have no leg to stand on when you agree with homosexual practices, regardless of consent, that promote the spread of HIV much more than metzitzah spreads herpes. Furthermore circumcision has health benefits. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

And you have no leg to stand on when you agree with homosexual practices, regardless of consent, that promote the spread of HIV much more than metzitzah spreads herpes.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Adults taking part in homosexual activities have the capacity to consent to making those choices. Babies who are forced into getting their penis sucked for an unnecessary religious ritual do not have the same capacity to consent. Why is that so hard for you to understand that you continue to make that flawed analogy?

 

[extragreen]

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Adults taking part in homosexual activities have the capacity to consent to making those choices. Babies who are forced into getting their penis sucked for an unnecessary religious ritual do not have the same capacity to consent. Why is that so hard for you to understand that you continue to make that flawed analogy?

As I've said before, I do understand. I agree that homosexuals have the right to their activities, while I disagree with those activities. In the same way, I agree that those who practice the Jewish religion have a right to their religious practices, while I disagree with them. The part about the metzitzah that I disagree with is the greater possibility of contracting a disease, not the oral suction, nor the circumcision. It's not a homosexually based practice any more than a daughter suckling her mothers breast for mothers milk. I strongly suspect that the oral suction, of itself, will not negatively impact the 8 year old anymore than having their diaper changed.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The part about the metzitzah that I disagree with is the greater possibility of contracting a disease, not the oral suction, nor the circumcision. It's not a homosexually based practice any more than a daughter suckling her mothers breast for mothers milk.

Jesus, your apples-to-orangutans comparisons are atrocious.

A mother breastfeeding is a biological action that also happens to be the healthiest way to feed a baby.

Penis sucking serves no purpose other than to adhere to a religious ritual. At the same time, it promotes unhealthy practices and puts the baby at risk compared to simple medical procedures.

Listen, if you want to take part in these freakish religious rituals, have at it, as long as it only can hurt consenting adults. But when you start negatively impacting those who don't/can't give consent, it's a different story.

 

[Marine03]

As I've said before, I do understand. I agree that homosexuals have the right to their activities, while I disagree with those activities. In the same way, I agree that those who practice the Jewish religion have a right to their religious practices, while I disagree with them. The part about the metzitzah that I disagree with is the greater possibility of contracting a disease, not the oral suction, nor the circumcision. It's not a homosexually based practice any more than a daughter suckling her mothers breast for mothers milk. I strongly suspect that the oral suction, of itself, will not negatively impact the 8 year old anymore than having their diaper changed.

This quite possibly could be the dumbest shit you've ever said on here, which is quite the accomplishment. One is merely a ritual, the other is necessary for survival. Tell us again how they're the same?

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

Speaking of Oral Circumcision, I just successfully performed one. The key is to somehow bite off the tip, and then you simply tug at it a little with your mouth, until the outer skin/peel is perfectly removed, as the photo below illustrates.

 

[19MU88]

if they would just abort the babies like a good liberal...it would solve the problem

 

[WV-FAN]

this thread is sickening on multiple levels. a man sucking a baby's penis is ok. abortion hours/days prior to delivery is ok. what the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[extragreen]

Jesus, your apples-to-orangutans comparisons are atrocious.

No. My comparisons are something you don't want to agree with. Your concern is not with the baby, it's with religion.

A mother breastfeeding is a biological action that also happens to be the healthiest way to feed a baby.

I agree. That's not the point. The point is that metzitzah is no more a homosexual act than a female infant suckling her mothers breast. While you whine about the male infant not being able to consent, you're ok with the female infant having no say in the matter.
You are also ok with an infant 10 days younger being aborted simply because they haven't had a chance to use their lungs. Don't mention logic unless you display some.

Penis sucking serves no purpose other than to adhere to a religious ritual. At the same time, it promotes unhealthy practices and puts the baby at risk compared to simple medical procedures.

Adult males sucking other adult male's penises serves no purpose other than sexual gratification. At the same time it promotes the spread of disease and puts both adults at risk compared to heterosexual procedures.

Listen, if you want to take part in these freakish religious rituals, have at it, as long as it only can hurt consenting adults. But when you start negatively impacting those who don't/can't give consent, it's a different story.

You'll have a point here when, and only when you stop approving and defending abortion. Not a single aborted child has consented to being murdered. Ever. The last year I have statistics for, 2013, over 600,000 non consensual abortions were performed in the U S alone. How many metzitzahs were performed in the U S in that same year?

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

No. My comparisons are something you don't want to agree with. Your concern is not with the baby, it's with religion.

My concern is with religion BECAUSE it hurts the baby. My concern about religion has always been because it hurts mankind in countless ways; that includes babies.

I agree. That's not the point. The point is that metzitzah is no more a homosexual act than a female infant suckling her mothers breast. While you whine about the male infant not being able to consent, you're ok with the female infant having no say in the matter.

Another apples-to-orangutans. I'm not concerned about either having homosexual characteristics. I am concerned that it is harming the baby done only for religious reasons. Breastfeeding is helpful, not harmful, to the baby, and it is not being done with the primary purpose of being for religion.

You are also ok with an infant 10 days younger being aborted simply because they haven't had a chance to use their lungs. Don't mention logic unless you display some.

You don't have a problem with the next-of-kin being legally allowed to take a loved one off of a ventilator. Why? Because it isn't able to live on its own. Likewise, a baby cannot live on its own without the capacity to breath.

Adult males sucking other adult male's penises serves no purpose other than sexual gratification. At the same time it promotes the spread of disease and puts both adults at risk compared to heterosexual procedures.

And I am perfectly fine with consenting adults choosing that. What I am not fine with is harmful medical practices being done to those who can't consent (babies) based on a religious ritual.

I don't know if it's you not giving up this flawed argument due to not wanting to admit that it is comically bad or if you truly can't grasp the huge difference. Either way, you've presented it many times, my stance has never changed, and your attempts have failed each time.

Your hangup seems to be on the belief that I am against it because it makes me uncomfortable that a grown man is sucking on a child's penis. Sure, that isn't a pleasant visual. But unlike with breastfeeding, this uncomfortable practice is not only not a best practice's method, but it also is harmful to children . . . all in the name of religion. If the medical community agreed that sucking a baby's penis was the best way to do this procedure, I would support it, just as I do breastfeeding.

You'll have a point here when, and only when you stop approving and defending abortion. Not a single aborted child has consented to being murdered. Ever. The last year I have statistics for, 2013, over 600,000 non consensual abortions were performed in the U S alone. How many metzitzahs were performed in the U S in that same year?

See the comparison with ventilators. You have no problem removing a ventilator from a living human who can't breath on his own. But you do have a problem "removing the ventilator" from a fetus who has never lived on his own.

 

[extragreen]

My concern is with religion BECAUSE it hurts the baby. My concern about religion has always been because it hurts mankind in countless ways; that includes babies.

Your concern is not about babies. If it was, you'd not be willing to kill the ones that are a mere 10 days younger than the ones you supposedly are concerned about.

Another apples-to-orangutans. I'm not concerned about either having homosexual characteristics. I am concerned that it is harming the baby done only for religious reasons. Breastfeeding is helpful, not harmful, to the baby, and it is not being done with the primary purpose of being for religion.

I am concerned that your killing of babies is done only for the sake of convenience. You are not concerned at all. If you want to hide behind "they haven't taken a breath yet", so be it. If you want to be taken seriously, then stop playing the religion is terrible mantra because it creates an increase in the possibility of disease, while endorsing homosexual practices which also increase the possibility of disease.

You don't have a problem with the next-of-kin being legally allowed to take a loved one off of a ventilator. Why? Because it isn't able to live on its own. Likewise, a baby cannot live on its own without the capacity to breath.

No one has the capacity to breath after they are killed.

And I am perfectly fine with consenting adults choosing that. What I am not fine with is harmful medical practices being done to those who can't consent (babies) based on a religious ritual.

But what you ARE fine with is babies being killed without their consent based on a non religious procedure.

I don't know if it's you not giving up this flawed argument due to not wanting to admit that it is comically bad or if you truly can't grasp the huge difference. Either way, you've presented it many times, my stance has never changed, and your attempts have failed each time.

It is not my argument that is flawed when you protest a few babies being potentially harmed with a religious ritual are the very one who supports and defends a procedure of million of babies being in fact murdered. I never once during this conversation ever expected to change your mind. But until I grow weary of it, I will expose the hyprocrisy of your stance.

Your hangup seems to be on the belief that I am against it because it makes me uncomfortable that a grown man is sucking on a child's penis. Sure, that isn't a pleasant visual. But unlike with breastfeeding, this uncomfortable practice is not only not a best practice's method, but it also is harmful to children . . . all in the name of religion. If the medical community agreed that sucking a baby's penis was the best way to do this procedure, I would support it, just as I do breastfeeding.

Of course it makes you uncomfortable to envision a grown man sucking a child's penis. As I said you have an aversion toward the appearance of homosexuality, even though it's apparent that it is not such a practice, just like I said before.
"If the medical community agreed that sucking a baby's penis was the best way to do this procedure, I would support it..." So would I. As I've said many times in this thread, it's not about medical procedure, it's about religion. I know it, you know it.

See the comparison with ventilators. You have no problem removing a ventilator from a living human who can't breath on his own. But you do have a problem "removing the ventilator" from a fetus who has never lived on his own.

One is already dying after having been give the opportunity to live, the other is having that opportunity ripped from them without their consent. I suggest you don't bring up apples and orangatans again. After this post, I'm done with this thread. I will say it's been a pleasure to argue with someone other than a cheetos head. It's been a while.

 

[mlblack16.]

You don't have a problem with the next-of-kin being legally allowed to take a loved one off of a ventilator. Why? Because it isn't able to live on its own. Likewise, a baby cannot live on its own without the capacity to breath.

Trust me, I'm enjoying watching this argument unfold, but a baby 10 days from being born does have the capacity to breath; the problem would be that it's not being given the opportunity to do so if aborted, so that would and should be considered fvcked up.

On the other hand, a patient being terminally weaned from mechanical ventilation no longer posseses the capacity to breath on his/her own, so a decision to allow that person to die would certainly be understandable. That having said, I hope I never have to be a part of making such a decision for anyone I know.

Then again, I don't know that I've ever heard of a fetus being aborted just 10 days before the expected birth date, unless it was going to be stillborn, so it's really a dumb example, compliments of Greed.

 

[herdfan06]

Why has this thread turned into an argument between two heterosexuals arguing over the proper application of male on male oral sex?

 

[mlblack16.]

Why has this thread turned into an argument between two heterosexuals arguing over the proper application of male on male oral sex?

Not so fast there Professor.

The jury is still out on Greed.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

If you want to be taken seriously, then stop playing the religion is terrible mantra because it creates an increase in the possibility of disease, while endorsing homosexual practices which also increase the possibility of disease.

You think my stance on religion is based on that? My stance on religion is based on far, far more than that. This is just one more example of how fvcked up it is.

Of course it makes you uncomfortable to envision a grown man sucking a child's penis. As I said you have an aversion toward the appearance of homosexuality, even though it's apparent that it is not such a practice, just like I said before.

I would have the same uncomfortable feeling if it were an adult woman sucking a child's penis. It has absolutely nothing to do with any perceived homosexual aspect of it; it is simply about an non-consenting child engaging in that activity with an adult.

You can keep putting words in my mouth and failing . . . or you can be a rabbi and put something else in your mouth, theist.