Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.
This boggles the mind.
It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.
The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."
They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!
But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.
It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.
As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted by licensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government." One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."
But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:
"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."
Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.
I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?
Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?
But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?
Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.
Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?
I just don't understand.
You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."
EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."
Agreed. It boggles my mind as well.ReplyDelete
On 1 Girl 5 Gays, 4/5 of the gay men there were against circumcision of infants/children. Those that are for circumcision have probably have not had enough experience with intact guys.ReplyDelete
All people are hypocritical. This does not surprise me. Oppressed people, if given the chance, oppress other people.ReplyDelete
Joseph, gay men are major allies of intactivism. I conjecture that most donations to Intact America come from well-off gay men. My favourite male-owned intactivist web site is owned by a gay man. Most active gay men have been with both kinds, and many are outspoken in their preference for intact. Intact gay men can interact sexually in a very safe way: mutual masturbation.ReplyDelete
I have discovered on Facebook lesbian intactivists. I am not sure where they are coming from, but I suspect they sympathise with natural American men being a disdained minority.
Many leaders of gay and lesbian organisations are of Jewish ancestry (when I first heard that, I thought it was a slur). It is very true that the Torah condemns male homosexuality. Moreover, Jewish culture has no place for not marrying and not having children. This is a deeper cultural matter, deeper in the sense that breaches thereof are harder to forgive. I suspect that some Jewish gay men and lesbians have spoken out in defence of brit milah in order to offset the insult to Jewish tradition that their homosexuality and childless state represents.
Your post argues that disdain for intact men is a form of bigotry and discrimination. You are correct, but keep in mind that opposition to bigotry and discrimination is almost always selective. For example, most enlightened and progressive opinion detests the Roman Catholic Church and holds its members in disdain. In my view, most people have major blind spots.