Because when something sucks, why shouldn't everyone have it?

There is such a thing as female circumcision ... look it up. It's cruel, but it exists.

This past month, we lost a lot of progress. We took something unnatural and horrible and made sure it was available to everyone, when we should have been banning it for everybody. I'm so sorry this happened, gay community. You have my deepest condolences that your community organizers decided they represent you.

And with that attitude, I doubt you ever will...

You are truly a Neanderthal.

@TheRoosh,
Female circumcision is not legal in the US, and I realize that marriage is optional.
However, marriage is stupid and primitive, and driven solely through social pressure and shoddy incentivizing (not all that different from some reasons parents circumcise, the only difference being the child has no say in it).

Marriage is a contract which many people don't always fully understand until an aspect of it is enacted. It is LITERALLY agreeing to surrender your rights as an individual by tying them to another person, and there is a great deal of gender bias against men in divorce court, so it will be VERY interesting to see if gay divorce court forces the law's hand to have equal treatment under the law for heterosexuals to get divorced once this invariably plays out in gay divorce court.

And as for female circumcision, I'm better-researched than you, I promise.
Female circumcision is not solely the removal of the clitoris, but defined as ANY mutilation of the va**na, even pin pricks.

And there are some forms of female circumcision that are equivalent to male circumcision. For instance, the clitoral hood is the female counterpart to the male foreskin (hereafter referred to as the "female foreskin").

If we had equal treatment under the law in the US, then either elective removal of the female infant's foreskin would be legal, or the elective circumcision of male infant's foreskin would not be.

The only reason people claim male circumcision isn't bad is because they're comparing it to female circumcision in countries which do not have sanitary conditions and western quality hospitals.

If you compare male and female circumcision in bush settings where they are both subject to the same conditions, there are just as many males who die of infection or disease transmitted from unsterile conditions and utensils in these settings.

If we were to provide the same treatment to women in modern facilities, their death rates and bleeding out rates would be similar to males in modern facilities (and yes, dozens of male infants die each year in the US from circumcision complications-- one dozen officially, with dozens more concealed medical malpractice).

But does that make it acceptable? No, of course not.
If you treat one gender a certain way, ESPECIALLY UNDER THE LAW, then the other gender should follow suit.

Both male and female circumcision SUCK. End of story. You can argue the logistics of female circumcision being worse, that doesn't make male OK.

tl;dr