The Glade 4.0

Your point fails because you're assuming reproduction itself is the imperative. It's not.
Sex is the imperative. Sex just happens to be the method natural selection has developed for the purpose of reproduction, but whether or not sex results in reproduction is irrelevant to the imperative at the individual level.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Sex is currently one of the biggest mysteries of biology. It is vastly inferior to asexual reproduction in terms of propogating one's genetic code. It's far more efficient to simply reproduce asexually, and you don't have some other being's DNA **** things up. Sexual reproduction requires twice as many parents to make a child, and leads to competition for mates (which can kill adults of the species).

No one debates that it feels good, and that might possibly be why higher life forms all reproduce sexually. If it didn't feel good, we would not do it. Period. The urge to breed is not the natural imperative, while the urge to feel orgasmic joy is.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Which is true, but ignores the fact that sex is an imperitive because it leads to reproduction. The two are inextrivably intertwined, and trying to differentiate between them is rather futile.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Think about how many more people there would be if we reproduced more efficiently.

Again, yes, the individual imperative is to satisfy the sex drive. That drive, however, only exists becuase of the need to reproduce.

Types of sex that don't lead to reproduction are just part of the inefficiency that controls our population.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This was always addressed in every high school and college bio course I ever took-- that sexual reproduction allows for greater diversity and therefor a greater chance that any given population will contain resistance to a particular threat.

Example. Bacteria Strain A has mutated a resistance to heat. Bacteria Strain B has mutated a resistance to lower PH levels.
What happens when both occur? Both strains are lost
On the other hand if you can combine traits (ie with sexual reproduction), (assuming a dominant trait on a single chromosome) 1/4th of the offspring with similar resistance patterns would be able to survive both increased.

There are advantages to both systems. But as sexual reproduction clearly dominates all life outside the microscopic level.....

So celibacy has nothing to do with the issue then.

_________________

Rather ineffectively, however.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, it may very well have everything to do with the issue.

These are all sexual releases. Artificially supressing those releases puts a significant amount of strain on someones system and mental state. Different people react differently to those strains.

While this is possible (see prisons), I highly doubt it it's a major factor. Changing one's sexual preferences that drastically is less likely than simply having them break their celibacy vows with a woman. (Of course, the latter is undoubtably far more common, too.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

The world would be a better place if there was more sex.

Look at the middle east, buncha repressed, angry fanatics. Hence, strife.

Brazil? You never hear **** from those people? Why? They're too busy having sex

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm not, nor have I been stating that I think that celibacy is going to change one's sexual preference.

What I'm saying is that if you're someone who is gay (whether or not they have admitted that to themselves is another issue) and finds young men attractive, and then are put into a situation where you are strictly prohibited from acting on those urges, I believe you are more likely to do something stupid and reprehensible.

Alternatively, if you were the same man and put into a scenario where your sexuality was celebrated and there were any number of younger men who were over the age of 18, but liked to play dress up or similar were available and interested, I believe you would be much less likely to do something stupid and reprehensible.

See bold above. Did I miss something?

_________________

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Not so much missed something, as are trying to use a shade of grey as a black and white switch. I'm certain there are some pedophiles that have gotten into the clergy that would have been pedophiles regardless. I'm also certain there are those who have entered the clergy and have reacted very poorly to the limitations and restrictions put on them and made some terrible decisions and became pedophiles.

Wow ...

Take your bigotry elsewhere, because your posts in this thread are **** offensive, Aizle.

_________________

The strain from not being able to have sex is not that bad. It certainly does not cause one's sexual preference to change. In cases where only one type of sex is possible the person may take what there is (prisons) but for priests there is certinly the option of other types of sexual encounters that are illicit only in terms of their vows; they do not involve illegal acts or abuse of anyone.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim it "may have everything to do with the issue" and then turn around and say "different people react in different ways". Tha's just trying to imply that celibacy causes child moslestation while also acknowledging that there's actually no evidence of any causal relationship.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sorry you feel that way, but no. Feel free to stop reading the thread.

There's no bigotry in Aizle's posts on this subject, Khross. Stop trying to stir up sh*t by pretending otherwise.

And yet you have given absolutely zero evidence to support this. For one thing, you are vastly overstating how hard it is to control onesself sexually. Yes it sucks, but its far from the psychological trauma you're implying. It does not become impossible to control yourself beyond a certain point or anything like that. For another thing, it is not all that hard for a priest to go find someone other than a child to sleep with. If the priest is gay, they can certainly go to a gay bar; just go to another town and don't wear priestly garb. If they're straight they can find a prostitute. Yes they run a risk of getting caught just like they run a risk of getting caught with a child.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So my comment of "may have everything to do with the issue" means that for some people that may have been a large contributing factor. Those two phrases are in effect saying the same thing.

No? Maybe not bigotry in an "I hate Catholics" sense, but definitely there's some in the "I don't like Catholic beliefs and practices and I'm bound and determined to keep implying there's something wrong with them no matter what" sense.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

"Everything to do with the issue" implies that it is the primary cause in most or all cases, but never mind the semantics.

The fact of the matter still is that there is no good reason to think this is the case. It is not as if there is any shortage of pedophiles in other areas; its just that priest pedophiles get excessive attention because of the nature of the trust issue for catholics, and he desire to have a stick to pound the catholic church with by people who don't like it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Right, because you somehow agree with his unsubstantiated and psychologically flawed attacks on the Catholic Church? It's **** offensive that he's sitting suggesting that Celibacy exacerbates pedophilia because of a gross information bias in contemporary media. It's hilarious that all of the "liberals" on the forum are so intent on attacking an organization simply because it believes differently than they do.

We have open support for a speech full of historical falsehoods and bad logic. We have continued insistence that Celibacy is all sorts of evil without any recognition of the fact that the Church adopted said vows for practical reasons. But, no, of course there's no bigotry when Aizle continues to repeat things that are simply not true because of his chosen position on religion.

I mean, we could ask Aizle to substantiate his beliefs with facts, but we know how that goes from another thread. So, yes, it is bigotry. It is, in point of fact, projecting negative prejudices with no basis in reality because of a superficial disagreement on matters of dogma that Aizle doesn't even understand.

The only people stirring up **** in this thread are you and Aizle, RangerDave.

_________________

That's true, assuming the priest in question has a healthy, stable, non-destructive view of sex in general and their own sexual urges in particular, which I'm sure is true of the vast majority of priests. However, I think what Aizle's saying, and I agree, is that if you have someone who lacks those healthy attitudes and then add the stress of spiritual and institutional condemnation and enforced celibacy, those individuals may well be more likely to engage in harmful and predatory sexual activity by taking advantage of vulnerable and available people like the kids they minister to.