Warbler said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Warbler said:
RicOlie_2 said:
To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?
One may as well ask
"could you give me your reasons for thinking men should be allowed to become priests?"
"could you give me your reasons for thinking Black people should be allowed to become priests?"
"could you give me your reasons for thinking Asians should be allowed to become priests?"
"could you give me your reasons for thinking Hispanics should be allowed to become priests?"
"could you give me your reasons for thinking Native Americans should be allowed to become priests?"
It's absolutely ridiculous to equate gender/sex with race. Men did not evolve into women or vice versa. Black people did evolve into white people, Asians, Hispanics, and native Americans. There is not always a clear distinction between them. The only time this is the case between men and women is when there is a physical deformity. There's a big difference between that and a black person who is born albino, and thus with white skin (which is where white people come from).
Shall I continue your line of reasoning?
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with moustaches should be allowed to become priests?"
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with black hair should be allowed to become priests?"
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking blonds should be allowed to become priests?"
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with scars should be allowed to become priests?"
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking albinos should be allowed to become priests?"
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with chronic illnesses should be allowed to become priests?"
"Could you give me your reasons for thinking Spaniards or Germans should be allowed to become priests?"
this is my point, you don't ask why any of the of the above that you and I listed should be allowed to become Priests, yet you ask this about women. Why? Why does sush a question need to be answered about women but not of any those that you or I listed?
Why do you think men and women should have the same roles? Black people and white people can do the exact same things as each other, so it's pretty obvious there. That doesn't affect ability. Women can give birth, however, men can't. That's an undeniable difference between them. They are different, whereas black people and white people aren't really different.
There are clear and obvious differences between men and women in terms of both biology and psychology. The only differences between black people and white people are physical, historical, and cultural.
I fail to see how the biologic and psychologic differences make it impossible for all women to be Priests. I fail to see why these differences should mean an automatic disqualification for women. Do the differences truly mean that all the Catholic female that have ever been in the 2000 year history of the church would not make good Priests? All of them? There has never been one instance where a woman could qualify despite the differences?
It isn't about what they can do so much as it is about what they are, what they represent. A woman cannot act in the person of Christ, but a man can. A woman can take the role of Mary in some capacity, and men can't. God gave us different genders. If he wanted us to do the same things as each other, he would have made us so that we could reproduce without anyone else, or with anyone else. Men and women have complimentary roles, which do overlap in some areas, but not all. It doesn't mean one is greater than the other. They need each other, otherwise mankind would go extinct. Trying to merge the two sexes so that they are identical is therefore a violation of human nature.