San Francisco may vote to ban circumcision

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Orogeny

Guest
nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/116618063.html?1

What you want to be that those that are so concerned about this are pro-abortion.

Sounds a bit anti-semetic, too.

And interestingly, it would allow circumcision, but only after age 18. I wonder if other forms of “mutilation” like piercings and tatoos will be banned until age 18? Nah, I don’t really wonder that, 'cause I know the answer.

Peace

Tim
 
To clarify, voters in San Francisco may be given the opportunity to ban circumcision. At this point, the ballot initiative has not qualified to appear on the ballot. An activist has proposed the idea and is required to collect a bit over 7000 signatures in support of it before the end of April.
Schofield has until April 26 to submit 7,168 valid signatures to make it onto the ballot. He would not disclose how many signatures were collected at this point.
Click to expand...
The signature-gathering is being run by a committee of about 10, he said. Schofield would not divulge the identities of the committee members, but said several are spending their own money to pay for signature-gatherers to help out. Schofield said he is out there himself — not being paid — collecting the signatures outside grocery stores and in neighborhoods like SoMa, the Castro, the Haight and Noe Valley.
Click to expand...
sfexaminer.com/local/2011/02/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-headed-november-ballot
 
Is anyone else amused that * San Francisco*, of all places, is interested in this?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Is anyone else amused that * San Francisco*, of all places, is interested in this?
Click to expand...
I think the proposal is odd, but I don’t see any irony or other humor in the situation. On the other hand, I have been known to be incredibly dense at times, so maybe.

BTW, the organization which recruited Schofield for this endeavor has also written bills for the US Congress, and 46 of the state legislatures, to ban all circumcision of infants. They have been looking for legislators who will sponsor their bills, but have largely been unsuccessful. Last year, State Sen. Michael Morrissey of Quincy Massachusetts sponsored such a bill, but it died in committee.
 
Orogeny said:
nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/116618063.html?1

What you want to be that those that are so concerned about this are pro-abortion.

Sounds a bit anti-semetic, too.

And interestingly, it would allow circumcision, but only after age 18. I wonder if other forms of “mutilation” like piercings and tatoos will be banned until age 18? Nah, I don’t really wonder that, 'cause I know the answer.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
I don’t know the full context behind this specific bill.

But female circumcision (e.g. genital mutilation) is a serious issue, and if the purpose/effect of this bill would be to make female circumcision (on minors) illegal, then its probably a good thing.
 
Wow, I guess they don’t want any Jewish people to live there!!! Shocking!

:mad:
 
Should I assume they are also going to try and ban ear piercings and tattoos? Both would qualify as unnecessary mutilations.

Also, calf and breast implants, as well as collagen lip imptantation need to be addressed.
 
Why are gay men, who never have kids of their own, always trying to tell the people who do have kids how they’re suppose to raise them? Last summer we had Provincetown basically telling parents they have no rights with regard to moral guidance of their elementary school kid’s “sex life” by distributing condoms to elementary school kids. Now this. I know not every guy in Provincetown and San Francisco is gay, but it looks like more than just coincidence that those two locations are involved here, it’s a pattern.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Why are gay men, who never have kids of their own, always trying to tell the people who do have kids how they’re suppose to raise them?
Click to expand...
:confused:

Why would you think the person behind this proposal is gay?

Is the Massachusetts state senator who sponsored a bill similar to the ballot initiative proposal also gay?

Or the national organization (based in San Diego) which seems to be behind both endeavors, is it a gay organization?

And I don’t see how condoms in Provincetown is related to this issue, other than you think gays are behind both.
 
Dale_M said:
:confused:

Why would you think the person behind this proposal is gay?

Is the Massachusetts state senator who sponsored a bill similar to the ballot initiative proposal also gay?

Or the national organization (based in San Diego) which seems to be behind both endeavors, is it a gay organization?

And I don’t see how condoms in Provincetown is related to this issue, other than you think gays are behind both.
Click to expand...
I wish you had quoted my entire post, especially " I know not every guy in Provincetown and San Francisco is gay, but it looks like more than just coincidence that those two locations are involved here, it’s a pattern."

And it does look like a pattern.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
I wish you had quoted my entire post, especially " I know not every guy in Provincetown and San Francisco is gay, but it looks like more than just coincidence that those two locations are involved here, it’s a pattern."

And it does look like a pattern.
Click to expand...
Could you explain the pattern? Other than both cities have an image as being gay-friendly, I don’t see any connection between Mr. Schofield’s proposal in San Francisco and condom distribution in Provincetown.
CHRISTINE77 said:
It’s possible. Some people think that circumcision decreases the pleasure men experience while having sex.
Click to expand...
Well, its possible that anyone is gay. However, I believe the circumcision topic has been hotly debated in the Family Life forum of CAF, and I doubt most of the opponents of it are gay.
 
this puzzles me. Doesn’t San Francisco have a high population of jews? What, did they all slip and fall on their heads, and decided to vote against themselves?
 
Not_Sure said:
this puzzles me. Doesn’t San Francisco have a high population of jews? What, did they all slip and fall on their heads, and decided to vote against themselves?
Click to expand...
No vote has been taken. All that has happened so far is one person has filed to put the idea to a vote. He is now in the process of collecting signatures to put the proposal on the November ballot.
 
He_Man said:
Should I assume they are also going to try and ban ear piercings and tattoos? Both would qualify as unnecessary mutilations.

Also, calf and breast implants, as well as collagen lip imptantation need to be addressed.
Click to expand...
There is a world of difference between such minor (cosmetic) body modification and FGM (female genital mutilation). FGM often results in chronic pain, serious health issues, and even death. Moreover, its stated purpose is usually to keep girls ‘chaste and pure’ by making them unable to enjoy any kind of sex (something its all too effective at).
 
He_Man said:
Should I assume they are also going to try and ban ear piercings and tattoos? Both would qualify as unnecessary mutilations.

Also, calf and breast implants, as well as collagen lip imptantation need to be addressed.
Click to expand...
It’s SF, not Hollywood… you still generally have to be at least 18 for these procedures. Granted some wacko parents allow their kids…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top