Sex with an Uncircumcised Man

Did you even read the links? Did you not see that genesis was an invention of the priests circa 550BCE.

Didn't you bother to read about the position of the Catholic church?

Why do you persist in ignoring the evidence and make claims that have been debunked. The worst form on ignorance is CHOSEN ignorance.
So, even though research into the religious requirement has shown this assumption to be bogus, people still cling to these erroneous superstitious as a justification for harming infants? WHY this clinging to false ideas?

As for following the herd, HOW can this be considered rational?

I dismiss your "reasons" as they are not rational nor REASONED.

The first step in advancing is to research a subject and adjust your conclusions to the existing evidence--not ignoring the evidence to maintain your previous decision..this willingness to research is the opposite of denial.

WHY is it important for your son's penis look like Daddy's? ANY rational explanation?

WHY is it important for your son's penis look like others? Especially since the "others" are only in a small majority, and will be the minority soon at the present rate of decline?

Robert, something that especially spoke to me in your link is: "The rates of these are HIGHER in many circumcising countries than in many intact countries, hence the alleged predictions are contradicted by empirical evidence. Unlike "medical science," SCIENCE demands that prediction be fulfilled EVERYTIME to be credible."

It appears that many medical professionals need this lesson repeated as there are many examples of the evidence being contradicted yet they seem to have accepted these studies as if they were set in concrete and blessed by some heavenly diety. In fact, there are numerous examples of the contradictions all over the world but it seems they are the elephant in the living room that no one will acknowledge.

The proposal by these fraudulent scientists is that circumcising these men will block the vectors of transmission to the disease ending the epidemic. For those who may not understand the principle of vectors of transmission, let me illustrate by giving a real world example:

Imagine a city with 100 streets emanating from a central downtown point. Then imagine there are 100 cars leaving this downtown point each on it's own separate street. The cars represent circumcised men. At the one mile mark, 60% of the streets would have a huge hole that the cars would drop off into ending their journey. So, at this point, we have 40 cars still headed out of the city but they find that 60% of those streets have a hole that they drop into. Then, we have 24 remaining cars headed toward their destination. But, they also run into 60% of their routes with holes so we have 9 cars remaining on their routes but in another mile, 60% of those run into streets with holes in another mile and we only have 4 cars headed out of the city. The next mile removes two more and the next mile removes one of the last two leaving one. That one only has a 60% chance of surviving it's next mile and every mile after that. As you can see, it is very unlikely that any car will escape the city.

This is exactly how a vaccine works. It is the same as my example of a city except the streets are people, the cars are the virus and the holes are the proposed protective effect. Since HIV is widely spread in The US where 80% of the sexually active men are circumcised, there is no possible way HIV could have become established in this country much less thrived as it has.

If circumcision had any protective factor at all, the differences in infection rates among circumcising and non circumcising countries would be stark. Even a small protective factor would make an observable difference and that difference is not evident anywhere in the world.

This tells us that the circumcision issue is simply fraudulent and deceptive and more than likely, an agenda of those who have a sexual fetish of spreading circumcision around the world and probably more so, reversing the rapidly falling circumcision rate in The United States and Canada.

Frank O'Hara

Wow..circumcision must be the miracle cure for everything!!! Nope, just puts alot of money in the pockets of the monsters that promote this atrocity.

Rick in Toronto, the true origins of male circumcision are unknown but it is known that it was practiced about 1,500 years before it's supposed inclusion in Genesis as The Covenant between God and Abraham. It was practiced by Egyptian Priests. I say "before it's supposed inclusion in Genesis because in fact, it was not included in the original manuscripts that survive to this day and appears to have been added after The Temple burned about 550 B.C.

The first record we have as an effort to attenuate the sexuality of men was in the 12th century when Moses Maimonides wrote:

"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

I'm curious as well. Modern circumcision started in the Victorian era as a way to "cure masturbation" by reducing sexual pleasure. Obviously it didn't work, but that was the idea. Everyone knows that the Jews were commanded to circumcise, but unless I am much mistaken circumcision predates Judaism, and the origin of it really isn't known.