What's new
By:

No more circumcision in SF?

at any rate, as someone mentioned, does this proposed new rule have an exemption on religious grounds?


This somewhat reminds me of that California case of the boy of Sikh background who was forbidden from wearing his ceremonial dagger to school, as I recall that case has given impetus to a movement to recognize the rights of Sikh's to carry this dagger as part of their everyday apparel as required by their religion
https://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/CAKirpanBill.htm
 
Isn't it amazing how California with all the problems they have still have time to argue over crap like this? Or about teaching homosexual history at school? It's amazing to me what Californians allow their governments to argue about. In Utah, a lot of people were outraged when the government was talking about the "state gun." It was nonsense. But Utah doesn't have the long list of budget shortfalls and problems California has. Unbelievable.
 
moevillini said:
So LESS than HALF prefer a circumcised male....

and your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that if 42% think there is no difference and 45% prefer a circumcised member, a circumcised person has a much wider pool of women to choose from than an uncircumcised person. That's 87% of women that would go for an circumcised member. In politics that would be called a landslide. A referendum even...
 
Marcus said:
My point is that if 42% think there is no difference and 45% prefer a circumcised member, a circumcised person has a much wider pool of women to choose from than an uncircumcised person. That's 87% of women that would go for an circumcised member. In politics that would be called a landslide. A referendum even...
Click to expand...

well, there's still 53% who'd take the uncircumsized guy, I should think that would be plenty...

at any rate, it'll be interesting to see where this proposal ends up
 
ok, this might be sort of like karma coming full circle...

https://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/04/27/20110427obama-birth-certificate-arizona-tea-party.html

The Arizona Legislature this year was the first in the nation to pass a measure requiring presidential candidates to show proof of citizenship to get on the state's ballot, and Gov. Jan Brewer was the first to veto such an effort.

House Bill 2177 garnered international media attention, including support from businessman Donald Trump.

Kelly Townsend, co-founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party, believes the bill deserves at least part of the credit for President Obama's decision Wednesday to release his long-form birth certificate....
Click to expand...

The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be "natural born" U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. It does not define natural-born citizen.

The final version of HB 2177 would have required presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide the Arizona Secretary of State with documents proving they are natural-born citizens. Those documents could be either a long-form birth certificate or two or more other permitted documents, including an early baptismal certificate, circumcision certificate, hospital birth record, postpartum medical record signed by the person who delivered the child or an early census record.
Click to expand...

Obama... Trump... Arizona... Tea Party... Birth Certificate... Natural Born Citizen... Naturalized Citizen... Circumcision Certificiate...

everything, it's all there
 
The Thriller said:
Isn't it amazing how California with all the problems they have still have time to argue over crap like this? Or about teaching homosexual history at school? It's amazing to me what Californians allow their governments to argue about. In Utah, a lot of people were outraged when the government was talking about the "state gun." It was nonsense. But Utah doesn't have the long list of budget shortfalls and problems California has. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Not yet.
 
I may be up in the night, but I am willing to bet that any romantic relationships that actually matter are decided on more factors than the condition of the male's ********. I also am willing to bet that most one-night-stand type relationships are engaged in without interrogating the male as to the condition of his ******** pre-emptively.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I may be up in the night, but I am willing to bet that any romantic relationships that actually matter are decided on more factors than the condition of the male's ********. I also am willing to bet that most one-night-stand type relationships are engaged in without interrogating the male as to the condition of his ******** pre-emptively.
Click to expand...

post removed by moderator

Oops. Nothing in my inbox yet but I've found that it usually shows up 24-48 hours later.
 
Last edited:
NAOS said:
The point was that I don't want the State telling me or my partner what we can do with our own bodies. Abortion is one example; circumcision is another. I think it's ******** that the SF might make the latter illegal.
Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with parental rights. Both examples have to do with children not "our own bodies."
Since I think sometimes the law has to step in and protect children from their parents I can't really criticize this law.
I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.
 
Millsapa said:
I think it has more to do with parental rights. Both examples have to do with children not "our own bodies."
Since I think sometimes the law has to step in and protect children from their parents I can't really criticize this law.
I think they should make the more damaging ****oridectomy illegal while they are at it.
Click to expand...

iawtp
 
moevillini said:
at any rate, as someone mentioned, does this proposed new rule have an exemption on religious grounds?


This somewhat reminds me of that California case of the boy of Sikh background who was forbidden from wearing his ceremonial dagger to school, as I recall that case has given impetus to a movement to recognize the rights of Sikh's to carry this dagger as part of their everyday apparel as required by their religion
https://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisories/CAKirpanBill.htm
Click to expand...

Would this not fit under the constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top