Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!mmm!cipher
From: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Sex and the single ...
Message-ID: <1062@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 14:59:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmm.1062
Posted: Mon Oct  6 14:59:48 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 06:04:09 EDT
References: <5009@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M
Lines: 27

In article <5009@decwrl.DEC.COM> early@tonto.dec.com writes:
>... Some religious clubs maintain [that]... everyone
>was meant to be married... unless EXCUSED by their
>[church]. Which coincidentally permits the church LEADERS
>to lead non married and otherwise celibate lives (remember celibate only
>means NOT married !). How convenient, hey ?

I didn't "remember" this, so I looked it up in the American Heritage
Dictionary.  The definition reads as follows:

	celibacy, n: 1. The condition of being unmarried, esp. by
	    reason of religious vows.  2. Abstinence from sexual
	    intercourse.

Celibacy does not "only" mean being unmarried.  Mr. Early implies that
the celibacy requirement is to allow priests the privilege of fooling
around which is denied to the laity.  However, in every religion I know
that has a celibacy requirement for priests, definition (2) is used.
If Mr. Early would like to provide us with a list of religions that use
definition (1) he is free to do so, but I suggest he consult references
on the subject before once more inserting pedal appendage in oral cavity.

(___)						Andre Guirard
|_ _|	 The reason I post such outrageous	  (ser^canta l'atoman
( v )	 stuff is that I love to get mail.	   unuon de stulteco.)
 \-/						ihnp4!mmm!cipher
  V