Celibacy

[quote]forlife wrote:
I won’t derail the thread further, just wanted to point out how it’s a little silly to claim that homosexuality should be condemned because it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race, but celibacy should not be condemned, although it too would mean extinction.

Unless, of course, not everyone was gay or chose celibacy…which is kinda my point. Obviously that isn’t the case, so the argument is inherently flawed.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. [/quote]

I’m not sure who said it would lead to the extinction of the human race. If everyone was gay, yes it would probably quickly lead to a decline in population. However, homosexuality does not naturally produce offspring, therefore is not a socially recognized union. I know “animals” have similar interactions, this is usually when there lacks females.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Btw, I am in NO WAY giving a pass to the priests[/quote]

Of course you’re, because 1) you’re Catholic, 2) you’re Catholic, and 3) you disagreed with their bullshit, therefore you support priests use their authority to abuse people and you should probably join them in the abomination because you love it so much.[/quote]

I know you know why I knew I had to preemptively say that.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I won’t derail the thread further, just wanted to point out how it’s a little silly to claim that homosexuality should be condemned because it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race, but celibacy should not be condemned, although it too would mean extinction.

Unless, of course, not everyone was gay or chose celibacy…which is kinda my point. Obviously that isn’t the case, so the argument is inherently flawed.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. [/quote]

I’m not sure who said it would lead to the extinction of the human race. If everyone was gay, yes it would probably quickly lead to a decline in population. However, homosexuality does not naturally produce offspring, therefore is not a socially recognized union. I know “animals” have similar interactions, this is usually when there lacks females. [/quote]

Celibacy doesn’t produce offspring either, so why should it be socially acceptable?

Celibacy in the permanent sense of course, not abstinence.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I won’t derail the thread further, just wanted to point out how it’s a little silly to claim that homosexuality should be condemned because it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race, but celibacy should not be condemned, although it too would mean extinction.

Unless, of course, not everyone was gay or chose celibacy…which is kinda my point. Obviously that isn’t the case, so the argument is inherently flawed.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. [/quote]

I’m not sure who said it would lead to the extinction of the human race. If everyone was gay, yes it would probably quickly lead to a decline in population. However, homosexuality does not naturally produce offspring, therefore is not a socially recognized union. I know “animals” have similar interactions, this is usually when there lacks females. [/quote]

Celibacy doesn’t produce offspring either, so why should it be socially acceptable?

Celibacy in the permanent sense of course, not abstinence.[/quote]

Are the celibate clamoring to be recognized by the state as solo-married, single-married, non-intimate friends with state-marriage-benefits? Where’s the homosexual marriage angle coming from?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I won’t derail the thread further, just wanted to point out how it’s a little silly to claim that homosexuality should be condemned because it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race, but celibacy should not be condemned, although it too would mean extinction.

Unless, of course, not everyone was gay or chose celibacy…which is kinda my point. Obviously that isn’t the case, so the argument is inherently flawed.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. [/quote]

I’m not sure who said it would lead to the extinction of the human race. If everyone was gay, yes it would probably quickly lead to a decline in population. However, homosexuality does not naturally produce offspring, therefore is not a socially recognized union. I know “animals” have similar interactions, this is usually when there lacks females. [/quote]

Celibacy doesn’t produce offspring either, so why should it be socially acceptable?

Celibacy in the permanent sense of course, not abstinence.[/quote]

Are the celibate clamoring to be recognized by the state as solo-married, single-married, non-intimate friends with state-marriage-benefits? Where’s the homosexual marriage angle coming from? [/quote]

Who said marriage?

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
I won’t derail the thread further, just wanted to point out how it’s a little silly to claim that homosexuality should be condemned because it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race, but celibacy should not be condemned, although it too would mean extinction.

Unless, of course, not everyone was gay or chose celibacy…which is kinda my point. Obviously that isn’t the case, so the argument is inherently flawed.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. [/quote]

I’m not sure who said it would lead to the extinction of the human race. If everyone was gay, yes it would probably quickly lead to a decline in population. However, homosexuality does not naturally produce offspring, therefore is not a socially recognized union. I know “animals” have similar interactions, this is usually when there lacks females. [/quote]

Celibacy doesn’t produce offspring either, so why should it be socially acceptable?

Celibacy in the permanent sense of course, not abstinence.[/quote]

Are the celibate clamoring to be recognized by the state as solo-married, single-married, non-intimate friends with state-marriage-benefits? Where’s the homosexual marriage angle coming from? [/quote]

Who said marriage?[/quote]

They can drive, hold jobs, have an influence on fashion and culture, show up in popular media, and make ‘skinny jeans’ popular. I guess the later ties into the fashion and culture thing. So, there’s little left outside of serving openly in the military. Or, the most often debated, marriage. If you’re asking why people like me don’t accept homosexuality on a personal level, you might as well ask why I find fecalphilia or furrydom (if I’ve called it by the correct name) repulsive. Outside, of that, I’m not sure where the social acceptance thing is going.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]xenophon wrote:
Celibacy in and of itself is not necessarily bad for you. However, men who do not ejaculate regularly are more likely to have certain health risks and women who are not exposed to male sperm have higher rates of depression because their bodies are biochemically wired to receive it in a mood altering manner.[/quote]

These are some specific claims there Niner, can we get some studies?[/quote]

Reduced Risk Prostate Cancer with Regular Ejaculation
Frequent Ejaculation Lowers Prostate Cancer Risk

Semen ‘makes women happy’
BBC NEWS | Health | Semen 'makes women happy'