That's just rationalization.
There is no choice about the vow of celibacy for someone who is a priest. It's imposed on those who would choose the priesthood.
Choosing the priesthood is voluntary. The celibacy attached to it is not. If someone has to fore go the priesthood because of the celibacy rule, that celibacy is not voluntary.
Matter of fact, if it's a rule, it's not voluntary.
I find it interesting that this line of argument is used here, where in every other aspect of life it is rejected. For example if you sign up for a credit card and are then subject to its terms and conditions including having disputes adjudicated via arbitration do we not say that signing up for that credit card is voluntary? We certainly would at FR. That is, unless, someone is advocating that matters of Faith be completely devoid of reason.
No, it's not, metmom.
Look, Iscool just told me that "No one in my church promotes any one unmarried to higher positions...In fact, there are no higher positions than a pastor or elder..." So therefore, is it fair to say that there is no choice about marriage for someone who is going to be a pastor or elder?
That marriage is imposed on those who would choose to be pastor or elder?
That choosing to be an elder is voluntary, but the marriage attached to it is not?
That if someone has to forego a pastorate or eldership because of the marriage rule, that marriage is not voluntary?
On each of these statements, I am exactly quoting Iscool, switching the terms "celibate" and "married," and he himself concludes, "Matter of fact, if it's a rule, it's not voluntary."
Q.E.D. Are either of you, Iscool or metmom, ready to defend a forced marriage requirement?