[lizma]

Neither does celibacy.

The apostles were married men for the most part. But somehow in the next few hundred years, it was decided that sacrificing comforts and needs were a way to honor God.

But I think it wasn't until the 1500's that celibacy became established in the Catholic church and at that point it was more a political decision (inheritance laws I think came into play (?)

(Here's a kicker. Women were still being ordained in the 1400's. I've read women had much more rights in the dark ages (not quite comparable to women's rights today) than they did in the Renaissance. I guess the Renaissance was not the "Renaissance" for everybody.)

Anyway, although neither adds to the human population, one adds to our sense of humanity and it's ability to sacrifice for what we precieve is good. The other is a show of self-gratification and meeting needs however detrimental it may be to society. Major Difference.

[donmeaker]

The dark ages were not so dark. The Roman empire survived until 1453, when Turkish (Ottoman) cannon stove in the walls of Theodosius. Contantinopolos (now Istanbul from 'Tambolos) had been sacked by the 4th Crusade, and much weakened.

The Romans were not so decadent, having a revival of virtue under the 4 good emperors, got an early version of a Constitution under Dioclitanus, and even managed to take mesopotania under the emperor Julian around 361. Alas, the empire gained by the pagans was lost by the Christians.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"The other is a show of self-gratification"

Sort of like ... masturbation?

[First Amendment]

But I think it wasn't until the 1500's that celibacy became established in the Catholic church and at that point it was more a political decision (inheritance laws I think came into play (?)

Can you cite some historical sources? What about the desert Fathers (and some desert Mothers)? They were celibate hermits, and in the 3rd century and maybe even 2nd.