Opinions may not be facts, but some opinions are very much more supported by facts than other opinions. Having an opinion does not make it valid.
I'm very much against circumcision forced upon minors for anything other than legitimate medical reasons. The line between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" is something that still needs to be addressed in American culture, too. So often intact b o y s are circumcised because they can't pull their foreskins back, or because they had paraphimosis, or because they had a yeast infection, even though these problems are either harmless, easily fixable, preventable, or all of the above. I think a lot of well-meaning American parents who leave their b o y s intact don't know about some of these issues, having grown up in a cut culture themselves, and a lot of guys grow up having problems with their dicks as a result.
I'm totally fine with adults getting cut, though I'm of course sad when they do it, especially since there's such a dearth of them around me already
I don't see it as any different than any other elective cosmetic surgery. I myself have modified my otherwise natural dick by cutting my frenulum. I did it cause I wanted to, and that's all the reason anyone needs to change their own bodies.
I've talked to enough people in enough places to feel like the whole "sensitivity" thing is a wash. I personally get A LOT of pleasure from my foreskin, but I know not everyone does. I don't get much pleasure from my glans or frenulum, but I know A LOT of guys do. Different people are wired differently, and if someone feels that having their glans exposed gives them more pleasure than having the foreskin rolling over it, I'm not gonna say they're wrong about that.
I also feel that despite its admirable goals, the intactivist movement has developed a problem with referring to cut dicks as "mutilated," or claiming that there are supposed persistent psychological effects from being circumcised as an infant. This unfairly stigmatizes guys who didn't have a say in the matter, who are the the exact people we should be convincing not to cut their own s o n s!
I also see people arguing over whether or not male circumcision is equivalent to female circumcision. This is a red herring. It doesn't matter how "severe" the modification is, it is still modification. Why is ALL modification of g i r l s i l l e g al in the US but b o y s have zero protection? Does this not violate the equal protection clause?
Lastly I don't respect "tradition" or "religion" as justifications for continuation of the procedure. As Sinjid306 said, not all traditions make sense. We have clear laws in most of our countries that protect religious expression so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights. We don't allow ritual sacrifice, or retribution killing, or parental neglect due to religious views; why do we allow circumcision?