Sign up against anti-gay amendment!

[SlickTony]

I think it's been understood that eating children was something that was done a long while back and only under the most dire circumstances, like famine. However, the FGM story ran a couple of days ago. It's still a common practice although more progressive governments are trying to do something about it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Okay, let me get this straight. Eating children is okay because of cultural themes, (From a different thread) but cutting off a girl's clitoris is bad irregardless of the cultural background?

DS

The question in the other thread wan't of right and wrong, it was one of morality. In my answer there I pointed out that Morality was, IMHO a conciet of society. In Egypt, during the early dynasties it was not only moral, but absoultely right and proper that Brother's and sisters were wed. Here, that's a no no, but in that time and place, according to their standards it made sense. Really, who else is fit to marry a living god? Any woman not of the royal line is marrying beneath his station, a mere mortal.

I've never been to Sudan. You probably couldn't get me to go to Sudan if you offered to make me Queen of Sudan. By the moral standards of this country hacking a girl's clit off is not only wrong, it's wrong enough I would favor castrating the SOB with a rusty butter knife and no anastetic. By the moral standards of his country, I don't know what the stance on female circumcision is.

But I do know this, he wasn't in his old country anymore. And I can almost say with 100% certainty we didn't go over there and ask him to immigrate, he made that chocie himself. The atrocity he commited may be perfectly acceptable in Sudan, but it isn't over here and if you come over here part of the process of immigrating is that you aceept a new set of legal codes and with those legal codes comes a different morality.

If your country condones the practice of mutilating your female children and it's something so rooted in your psyche that you can't do without it. Two words. Stay home. When you come to the U.S. you defacto accept a new standard of morality because you accept a new society. While this country is extremely tolerant of ethnic and religious and ideaological diversity, we aren't tolerant of ritual mutilization. Unless of course you choose to mutilate yourself when you become an adult, then we shrug, think what a nutter, but hey, it's a free country and you are free to be a nutter so long as you aren't hurting or a threat to anyone else.

Female circimcision is, to my mind, a horrid and abhorrent practice. That is however a moral conciet of mine, and is rooted not in an absolute knowledge of right and wrong, but simply within the morality of the society I was raised in. I know it occurs. I know within some societies it is moral. I know in mine it isn't. I thank god I wasn't born into one where it is.

This fellow probably had every right, within his home country, and would be standing on solid moral ground, to mutilate his child there. He wasn't there when he did it, he was here. And being here he is no longer subject to Sudanese morality, he's subject to American morality. And our morality says sexual mutilation of a child is henious and he's one of the worst kinds of monsters. God bless the U.S.A. and I hope the punishment fits the crime.

-Colly

 

[Couture]

Colly, since we're on the subject of sexual mutilation....

It's common practice to circumsize males in this country. What's your take on it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

The question in the other thread wan't of right and wrong, it was one of morality. In my answer there I pointed out that Morality was, IMHO a conciet of society. In Egypt, during the early dynasties it was not only moral, but absoultely right and proper that Brother's and sisters were wed. Here, that's a no no, but in that time and place, according to their standards it made sense. Really, who else is fit to marry a living god? Any woman not of the royal line is marrying beneath his station, a mere mortal.

I've never been to Sudan. You probably couldn't get me to go to Sudan if you offered to make me Queen of Sudan. By the moral standards of this country hacking a girl's clit off is not only wrong, it's wrong enough I would favor castrating the SOB with a rusty butter knife and no anastetic. By the moral standards of his country, I don't know what the stance on female circumcision is.

But I do know this, he wasn't in his old country anymore. And I can almost say with 100% certainty we didn't go over there and ask him to immigrate, he made that chocie himself. The atrocity he commited may be perfectly acceptable in Sudan, but it isn't over here and if you come over here part of the process of immigrating is that you aceept a new set of legal codes and with those legal codes comes a different morality.

If your country condones the practice of mutilating your female children and it's something so rooted in your psyche that you can't do without it. Two words. Stay home. When you come to the U.S. you defacto accept a new standard of morality because you accept a new society. While this country is extremely tolerant of ethnic and religious and ideaological diversity, we aren't tolerant of ritual mutilization. Unless of course you choose to mutilate yourself when you become an adult, then we shrug, think what a nutter, but hey, it's a free country and you are free to be a nutter so long as you aren't hurting or a threat to anyone else.

Female circimcision is, to my mind, a horrid and abhorrent practice. That is however a moral conciet of mine, and is rooted not in an absolute knowledge of right and wrong, but simply within the morality of the society I was raised in. I know it occurs. I know within some societies it is moral. I know in mine it isn't. I thank god I wasn't born into one where it is.

This fellow probably had every right, within his home country, and would be standing on solid moral ground, to mutilate his child there. He wasn't there when he did it, he was here. And being here he is no longer subject to Sudanese morality, he's subject to American morality. And our morality says sexual mutilation of a child is henious and he's one of the worst kinds of monsters. God bless the U.S.A. and I hope the punishment fits the crime.

-Colly

If this happened in the US, as I said earlier, put the son of a bitch in prison where he belongs, and everybody who helped him do it. After he finishes his time, hopefully many years from now, deport his ass.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Colly, since we're on the subject of sexual mutilation....

It's common practice to circumsize males in this country. What's your take on it?

There is very little comparison between circumcision of boys and the sexual mutilation of girls. Boys are probably slightly better off as adults if the circumcision is done. Sometimes the foreskin can cause problems and sometimes it can result in infection because it makes cleanliness more difficult.

 

[SadieRose]

Just want to say.. I didn't sign the petition. Not because I don't support the rights of same sex couples to be together, because I do.

I'm with Box on this one. It's a question of US legislation and I think that it's not our place (in Europe) as none US citizens to vote on such a thing. Although there should be petitions set up in every country across the world (in fact in many there are) putting pressure on the governments we vote (or not) into power, to allow people to live the lives they choose.

As a woman in a heterosexual relationship dating back over fifteen years (without the benefit of a marriage certificate, I might add) I would like to also put the point for couples who see no point in signing additional pieces of paper that join them together when they're already paying joint taxes and mortgages and god knows how much else into the society coffers!!!

Why the fuck SHOULD we marry? What difference should it make in the eyes of a so-called enlightened society, whether we choose to make a song and dance about our union?

This makes me very annoyed! Sorry.

xx.Sadie

 

[Couture]

There is very little comparison between circumcision of boys and the sexual mutilation of girls. Boys are probably slightly better off as adults if the circumcision is done. Sometimes the foreskin can cause problems and sometimes it can result in infection because it makes cleanliness more difficult.

No comparison? Their penis had a foreskin when they were born and then the doctor cut it off without asking their opinions. It also results in desensitization of the penis. How many men do you know who've escaped this form of sexual mutilation, who've asked for the procedure as an adult?

Just because the procedure is common, doesn't make it any less despicable.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No comparison? Their penis had a foreskin when they were born and then the doctor cut it off without asking their opinions. It also results in desensitization of the penis. How many men do you know who've escaped this form of sexual mutilation, who've asked for the procedure as an adult?

Just because the procedure is common, doesn't make it any less despicable.

The function of a foreskin is to protect the sensitive head of the penis. If all men went around naked and lived in areas of underbrush, the foreskin would have a function but, under the present circumstances, it has little. Removal of the foreskin does make the glans less sensitive but, as I can personally attest, it DOES NOT desensitize it. This is a downside but the positives are that a higiene problem is removed because the removal makes personal cleanliness easier and it prevents future problems such as phimosis and others.

I don't normally go around asking friends if they have been circumcised but I do know that my older brother, who was not circumcised, although I was, had a problem with painful tightness of his forskin when he had an erection. He was circumcised when he was about thirty and has had no complaints about it.

Male circumcision, which is the removal of a small flap of redundant skin, has almost nothing in common with female genital mutilation, which was the subject of an earlier post. This entails removal of the clitoris, usually the labia, and sometimes other organs to keep the girl/woman from enjoying sex. I can't imagine anybody actually giving informed consent for this. The reasons for this procedure vary but none of them are even close to being valid. Not only is sex not enjoyable, it is often painful, as is urination sometimes.

There is a procedure available to adult females called female circumcision, and it involves removal of a small part of the clit hood or other tissue and its purpose is to enhance enjoyment of sex. Some women choose to undergo this procedure and nobody is saying anything about this because it is something individuals decide for themselves.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, since we're on the subject of sexual mutilation....

It's common practice to circumsize males in this country. What's your take on it?

I have heard it's a ploy by which doctors enrich themselves. Don't know as I was never subjected to it and while I have seen a few penises in my time, I never thought to ask if the owner was circumcised or not.

It would seem to me to be a prety common and accepted thing, I don't believe it causes lasting damage to the boys ability to enjoy jerking off. As I understand female circumcision you are talking about removal of the clit. That would be the equivilent of taking a damned site more than the fore skin and if you were talking about that I would say no.

I don't believe the two proceedures have much in common beyond the fact that both invovle removal of tissue.

-Colly

 

[Liar]

Removal of the foreskin does make the glans less sensitive but, as I can personally attest, it DOES NOT desensitize it. This is a downside but the positives are that a higiene problem is removed because the removal makes personal cleanliness easier and it prevents future problems such as phimosis and others.

Ok, I just want to butt in and say one thing here. To remove foreskin for the sake of hygiene may have been a reason - a century ago. For those of the male population that are familiar with modernities like Running Water and Soap, a bit of skin ain't no problem.

(Though, like Box mentioned with his brother, it is an option for medical reasons. But that should be an informed adult desicion.)

Butting out...

#L

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ok, I just want to butt in and say one thing here. To remove foreskin for the sake of hygiene may have been a reason - a century ago. For those of the male population that are familiar with modernities like Running Water and Soap, a bit of skin ain't no problem.

(Though, like Box mentioned with his brother, it is an option for medical reasons. But that should be an informed adult desicion.)

Butting out...

#L

Even now, higiene is a reason. It is easier to bathe a baby without the foreskin and boys seldom take baths right after masturbating. Actually, little boys take baths as seldom as they can but that would be for another thread.

 

[Guest]

Even now, higiene is a reason. It is easier to bathe a baby without the foreskin and boys seldom take baths right after masturbating. Actually, little boys take baths as seldom as they can but that would be for another thread.

Neither of my sons was circumsized, as I wanted them to match their dad. Hygiene was no problem ever; and they both loved baths (it was like playtime). Now they are both healthy, sexually active adult men.

Perdita

 

[Svenskaflicka]

It's all a matter of up-bringing...

 

[Guest]

political relativism/hypocrisy

So, benefits for polygamists, but not for gays? My emphases. - Perdita

Group at U.N. tries to block benefits for gay partners - Colum Lynch, Washington Post, March 16, 2004

United Nations -- A bloc of more than 50 Islamic states, backed by the Vatican, sought Monday to halt U.N. efforts to extend spousal benefits to partners of some gay employees.

The initiative came less than two months after U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan moved to award benefits to partners of gay employees who come from countries where such benefits are provided, such as Belgium and the Netherlands.

The same group is also preparing to oppose a resolution, sponsored by Brazil and supported by the European Union, at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva that calls for nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, diplomats said. The Vatican and other conservatives maintain that the Brazilian resolution and Annan's new benefits policy would provide gay people with protections never envisioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A U.N. bulletin outlining Annan's new policy says: "A marriage recognized as valid under the law of the country of nationality of a staff member will qualify that staff member to receive the entitlements provided for eligible family members." It also asserts that "a legally recognized domestic partnership" will qualify U.N. staffers for similar benefits.

The United Nations has already recognized polygamy, a common practice in the Islamic world, as a legitimate form of marriage and permits employees to divide their benefits among more than one wife. But the decision to expand that right to same-sex partners has fueled intense opposition.

Iran's representative, Alireza Tootoonchian, speaking on behalf of the 56- member Organization of the Islamic Conference, said there was "no justifiable basis" for awarding benefits to same-sex couples.

A Vatican envoy, Joseph Klee, said recognition of same-sex unions ran counter to the Roman Catholic Church's concept of marriage and the family.

The Bush administration has sided with the Vatican and Islamic governments on a range of "family values" issues, including initiatives to restrict abortion rights and curtail the rights of children.

The U.S. representative at Monday's session, Elizabeth Nakian, declined to address the controversy at the meeting.

 

[rgraham666]

Now there's something you're not going to see everyday.

Bush and Iran on the same side of a question.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The United Nations has already recognized polygamy, a common practice in the Islamic world, as a legitimate form of marriage and permits employees to divide their benefits among more than one wife. But the decision to expand that right to same-sex partners has fueled intense opposition.

Iran's representative, Alireza Tootoonchian, speaking on behalf of the 56- member Organization of the Islamic Conference, said there was "no justifiable basis" for awarding benefits to same-sex couples.



Although I would be opposed to legalization of polygamy in the USA, I see no problem with recognizing it if it was legal elsewhere.

A Vatican envoy, Joseph Klee, said recognition of same-sex unions ran counter to the Roman Catholic Church's concept of marriage and the family.


I wonder what the Vatican has to say about recognition of polygamous marriages.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If it weren't so sad I'd laugh.

Gays, the one group just about everyone, reguardless of their governmental form or religion can agree upon to hate. The islamic nations in the U.N. won't even agree to condemn terrorist attacks, but they will join with the vatican and the U.S. to condem gays.

When I lie down at night I would prefer to have a woman in my bed with me, rather thana man. What the fuck is so wrong with that?

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

Actually, little boys take baths as seldom as they can but that would be for another thread.

When my son was little, he loved baths--sometimes he'd take one just out of sheer boredom. Unfortunately, he's entered a stage where he'd rather not. I figure when girls get to be more important to him, that'll change.

 

[juanjsojr]

I would signed it

I would sign it

 

[sweetnpetite]

Box, let me explain this to you:



And when you're calling my actions "worse than useless", you are, in fact, insulting me, and I will answer back to anyone who insults me.

SF, don't take this the wrong way, but some actions are 'worse than useless' in that they do more harm than good. If you really want to make a difference, one might think that you'd want to be told when your actions could likely have the opposite effect.

Online petitions are generally 'worse than useless' anyway, no matter who signs them. They have no legal standing, legeslators ignore them *if* they are even aware that they exist (there are probably an infinant amount of them floating around) they are too easy, and show no real effort on the part of the signer, there is no way to verify that you are who you say you are, or that you even exist (I could sign it a hundred times with a different name) And worst of all, most people think that they *do* make a difference, so they sign, and then think that there job is done.

Most likely, the poll was started by some big wig who really *wants* to make gay marriage illegal, just to disperse some of the energy against it.

The best thing you can do to try to make a difference is write and mail an old fashioned snail male letter to congress people, representatives, and so forth, so few people take the time, it matters more than you think. Even an outsider, might consider sending a thoughtful note, although I have no idea how seriously it would be taken.

sidenote: a few years ago, I considered singing a petition to put an issue on the ballet (legallizing marajiana). I figured, what the heck, show my support, but I also realized that even if it makes it to the ballet, people won't show up to vote. They think there job is done when they sign the ballet, when it has only just begun.