Last Catholic Adoption Agency in England fights to stay open

[InSearchofGrace]

…
If you were a gay man, would you turn to the Church when you see its members calling their thoughts and actions evil? Would you turn to the Church if you read someone comparing them to Hitler? Or would you rather turn to someone who tells you that your thoughts and actions are okay and natural. I know which one I would pick if my only impression of the Church were anti-gay lifestyle protesters like yourself. I cannot see any compassion in your posts, other than for those who have already come to the Church.

Well you’re already labelling them as Hitler and Stalin, so why not continue on with calling them homosexuals? By the way what does SSA stand for?

If I may chime in, the part of your quote I bolded is your stumbling block. Estes asked you how you would show compassion to someone who is engaging in homosexual behavior. Compassion is not letting your gay friend continue to think that his (homosexual) thoughts and actions are okay and natural. I appreciate that you are having an emotional reaction to the communication style or expression by Sunna, but it is the content or substance that is more important, if it is right on point with CC teaching.

Most likely, you are feeling for your gay friend, who is a good person with SSA. SSA stands for same sex attraction. If your gay friend is acting on that attraction with active lusting or performing the homosexual sex act, that is a sin, as defined in the gospels and in Catholic teaching. Perhaps it is hard for you to accept that sinful behavior, including the homosexual act, is evil.

I have a homosexual brother, which is hard for him and for us as a Catholic family. He feels broken and suffers. As his sister, I love him and pray for him. I do not tell him that homosexual thoughts and actions are okay.

Charity or love does not stop with feeling, it includes speaking the truth to someone you care for with compassion. Charity and compassion do not mean enabling or being passive in the midst of or when confronted with sinful behavior.

Perhaps we can all do a better job in communicating the delineation between sin and the sinner. The homosexual act is a slice of a person’s behavior. If it is done repeatedly, the person chooses to live a sinful life.

It is not easy to be a Catholic, to live and practice the faith. Best to accept that if you are serious with RCIA.

Blessings and peace to you, LemonandLime.

. . . . .

 

[LemonAndLime]

My point was that if a homosexual man was faced with the choice of turning to a Catholic who says that he is disordered (when he feels that his feelings are natural) or turning to someone who says that it is perfectly natural to have sex with other men, it is obvious which way he is going to turn. I am not saying that it is okay to tell him that what he does is okay.

Just a question - Why is homosexual sex such a sin? Don’t just tell me “cause the Bible says so” or “because the Church says so” - whats the actual reasoning behind it? Is it just natural law or the fact that they cannot get married so any sex they have is a sin anyway?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My point was that if a homosexual man was faced with the choice of turning to a Catholic who says that he is disordered (when he feels that his feelings are natural) or turning to someone who says that it is perfectly natural to have sex with other men, it is obvious which way he is going to turn. I am not saying that it is okay to tell him that what he does is okay.

Just a question - Why is homosexual sex such a sin? Don’t just tell me “cause the Bible says so” or “because the Church says so” - whats the actual reasoning behind it? Is it just natural law or the fact that they cannot get married so any sex they have is a sin anyway?

Certainly, that’s what a homosexual would like to hear.

Here is a cut/paste of a portion of my post on another related thread, which I hope helps answer your question:

A word on the natural law reason:

People have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another complementing human, according to what nature designed, i.e., the natural sex pairing of a man and a woman. Thus, people have the intuition concerning the homosexual act – this behavior is wrong because it is unnatural. Man and man, woman and woman, are not natural pairings, as with man and another species with mating ability.

Further, natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. Harm to another or society is not limited to the immediate and physical.

The argument by those who do not agree to natural law reasoning against same sex unions is that since homosexuality does not purportedly affect other people or society, everybody should just sign on to the proposition that it is normal, should be fully accepted and even promoted or celebrated. That pleasure from sex with another of the same sex makes it a “natural” act, and that end alone qualifies it to be considered natural. The “end” of mating is not just pleasure, although pleasure is indeed a gift.

Unbelievers would just have more contorted counter-arguments, for sure. I wish unbelieving posters in this thread open their minds to the spirit that lies under the Catholic way of thinking on all sinful behavior including homosexual acts. They forget that non-Catholics have this view on homosexual behavior as well, e.g., Jews, other Christians, Muslims, etc. We as Catholics are not expected to pass judgment but we have the duty to point out wrong behavior in a charitable and truthful manner.

Because some Catholics are homosexuals with the motivation to align with and push for the proposition that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, and the forceful gay agenda, our Church has an even bigger challenge.

. . . . .

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Just a question - Why is homosexual sex such a sin? Don’t just tell me “cause the Bible says so” or “because the Church says so” - whats the actual reasoning behind it? Is it just natural law or the fact that they cannot get married so any sex they have is a sin anyway?

You are limiting a full answer by asking for an explanation why homosexual sex is a sin without referring to the Bible or Church teaching. The word “sin” is defined as an act of violating a religious or moral code, which is under divine law. It is a concept tied to religion. If someone does not believe in divine law or denies the concept of sin, how can he reach understanding or acceptance that the homosexual act is sinful?

Is it a surprise that the majority of homosexuals are of the conviction that they were born with that sexual orientation? This belief relieves them of the moral responsibility to change.

A full answer necessarily covers reasons based on religion and natural law, the latter which I attempted to address on my earlier post.

. . . . . .

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Just a question - Why is homosexual sex such a sin?

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

Looking here at one of my favorite documents, “DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS
CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS”, I find several paragraphs that pertain to your question, but since it would take 10 minutes to read the whole thing, and since the mod wants us to limit our cut and paste, I’m picking some paragraphs that I hope best answer the question.

Speaking of “the sexual nature of man and the human faculty of procreation,” the Council noted that they “wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life.”[9] It then took particular care to expound the principles and criteria which concern human sexuality in marriage, and which are based upon the finality of the specific function of sexuality.

In this regard the Council declares that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, “does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[10]

These final words briefly sum up the Council’s teaching - more fully expounded in an earlier part of the same Constitution[11] - on the finality of the sexual act and on the principal criterion of its morality: it is respect for its finality that ensures the moral goodness of this act.

The document concerns premarital sex, homosexuality, and masturbation, but includes some explanation on the nature of the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

Some readers might get thrown by the word, “finality”. I think that refers to a male finishing inside the proper place in a woman.

 

[SunnaB16]

Stop trying to compare Hitler and Stalin to gay men and women. You cannot compare a holocaust to men who can turn better to the gay activists rather than the Church.

i did not say that both groups are/were*** EQUALLY*** evil!
Do you know what the term "difference of degree" means?

By the way: the holocausts perpetrated by all of the mass murderers throughout history added together will be as nothing compared with the Holocaust of hell, which will never end. Self-inflicted suffering forever! Hence, my comment that if those very public “Gay Rights” propagandists lead anyone to hell, the consequences for such a damned soul will be worse than the suffering inflicted on any victim of those two monsters. ***HELL IS PERMANENT. ***

No, I’m not, are you? By the way, “hatred of all men” is not feminism, look it up in a dictionary.

“Hatred of all men” is pretty well a part of*** radical*** feminism.

Lesbianism does not fall under the definition of feminism either.

That`s true; but promotion of lesbianism is part of the agenda of the radical feminists.

If you believe a woman has the right to read and write that makes you a radical feminist to 90% of the world’s population.

Does it???

Are you still sure you have the definition of “radical feminist” correct?

Certainly.

I did notice but did not reply because I did not take offence. I think those groups that support homosexual men to take a life of chastity do good work. But not those who describe homosexuals as alike to Hitler.

The “alike to Hitler” problem has been mentioned above. Its up to you to read others posts more carefully.

If you were a gay man, would you turn to the Church when you see its members calling their thoughts and actions evil?

Depending on how far they go with them, their thoughts may or may not be evil.
BUT, if disordered desires are turned into actions, we MUST tell them that what theyre doing is evil, and offer them assistance to break out of it. ***Thats true charity.***

Would you turn to the Church if you read someone comparing them to Hitler [False]? Or would you rather turn to someone who tells you that your thoughts and actions are okay and natural.

That`s false charity.

I know which one I would pick if my only impression of the Church were anti-gay lifestyle protesters like yourself.

In that case, you have a skewed idea of genuine charity.

I cannot see any compassion in your posts, other than for those who have already come to the Church.

i said we should pray for all of them, and offer them assistance to get out.
But: if these militants continue to publicly shout and rage; eventually, were obliged to oppose them, if for no other reason than the wellbeing of immortal souls. Eventually, were forced to treat them like “tax collectors”…while still praying for them.

Well you’re already labelling them as Hitler and Stalin [False], so why not continue on with calling them homosexuals? By the way what does SSA stand for?

SSA stands for Same Sex Attraction which is a more RESPECTFUL “label” than “gay” etc. Thats what i tried to say in that last post; but you werent interested.

Theres no point in "arguing" with you if youre determined to misinterpret what others have said.

 

[estesbob]

My point was that if a homosexual man was faced with the choice of turning to a Catholic who says that he is disordered (when he feels that his feelings are natural) or turning to someone who says that it is perfectly natural to have sex with other men, it is obvious which way he is going to turn. I am not saying that it is okay to tell him that what he does is okay. [quoe

So we should live in? Committing a grave sin while at the same time affirming their previous sin?

{quote]Just a question - Why is homosexual sex such a sin? Don’t just tell me “cause the Bible says so” or “because the Church says so” - whats the actual reasoning behind it? Is it just natural law or the fact that they cannot get married so any sex they have is a sin anyway?

Because the Catholic Church, the guardian of truth as handed down from the apostles, has told us so. If you don’t like that answer then I suggest you quit spending time in Catholic forums.

 

[LemonAndLime]

i did not say that both groups are/were*** EQUALLY*** evil!
Do you know what the term "difference of degree" means?

I do, but that does not make the comparison okay.

By the way: the holocausts perpetrated by all of the mass murderers throughout history added together will be as nothing compared with the Holocaust of hell, which will never end. Self-inflicted suffering forever! Hence, my comment that if those very public “Gay Rights” propagandists lead anyone to hell, the consequences for such a damned soul will be worse than the suffering inflicted on any victim of those two monsters. ***HELL IS PERMANENT. ***

Yes but in that case we should blame the devil, not a gay man. Although I think you’re confusing gay rights with pro-gay lifestyle. Gay people should have rights, just not the one to get married. Those who tell people they should persue a gay lifestyle are incorrect though.

“Hatred of all men” is pretty well a part of*** radical*** feminism.

My point was that they’re not actually feminists.

That`s true; but promotion of lesbianism is part of the agenda of the radical feminists.

No I’m pretty sure thats pro-gay activists, not feminists. Assuming that even radical feminists are more concerned with promoted lesbianism than the average person is typical of someone who stereotypes feminists as lesbians who hate men.

Depending on how far they go with them, their thoughts may or may not be evil.
BUT, if disordered desires are turned into actions, we MUST tell them that what they`re doing is evil, and offer them assistance to break out of it.

I agree.

i said we should pray for all of them, and offer them assistance to get out.
But: if these militants continue to publicly shout and rage; eventually, were obliged to oppose them, if for no other reason than the wellbeing of immortal souls. Eventually, were forced to treat them like “tax collectors”…while still praying for them.

Are you reading what I’m saying? If you are a gay man and one person tells you that you’re disordered, while another tells you what your behaviour is okay and you should be proud of who you are - which are you going to turn to? Its obvious, and thats why the Catholic Church isn’t reaching as many gay people as it wants to.

SSA stands for Same Sex Attraction which is a more RESPECTFUL “label” than “gay” etc. Thats what i tried to say in that last post; but you werent interested.

What makes you think I wasn’t interested?

Theres no point in "arguing" with you if youre determined to misinterpret what others have said.

There’s no point in “arguing” with you if you’re not going to listen to what I’m trying to say.

 

[SunnaB16]

I do, but that does not make the comparison okay.

Difference of degreee is still difference of degree, though.
“Love the sinner” doesn`t mean wanting to embrace him! It just means wishing the best for him which, ultimately, is SALVATION.

Yes but in that case we should blame the devil, not a gay man.

We all have free will. We`re responsible for where we end up. If an individual is determined to end up in hell (with Self), and he leads another soul there, then the fate of that other soul is on his hands, as well as the fate of his own. Remember the “millstone” passage.

Although I think you’re confusing gay rights with pro-gay lifestyle. Gay people should have rights, just not the one to get married.

No. Theres no such thing as "gay" marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The main God-given reason for marriage is the bringing forth of children. Thats fruitfulness.

Heterosexual couples adopt because one of the spouses has a physical problem.
By its very nature, a same-sex union is*** Barren***. It cannot be fruitful. As a Catholic, i have to accept the Churchs moral teachings on this. The Churchs teachings make sense, anyway; and they can be traced back to the very inner Life of God.

If the issue is property rights, or inheritance etc… im not qualified...... Dont they have all of that, anyway? ill go along with the Churchs moral teachings, whatever they are, on those issues, as well.

Those who tell people they should persue a gay lifestyle are incorrect though.

Yep; and the “millstone” passage comes to mind, again.

My point was that they’re not actually feminists.

No, but they`re radical feminists.

No I’m pretty sure thats pro-gay activists, not feminists. Assuming that even radical feminists are more concerned with promoted lesbianism than the average person is typical of someone who stereotypes feminists as lesbians who hate men.

Lesbianism is rife among radical feminists, though. And they do promote it as being at least OK.

Are you reading what I`m saying?..

The truth hurts…but it has to be told. Some of us may not be as diplomatic as we should be*** (Exhibit A!), ***but it has to be rammed home, somehow… at least to try to stop others from “joining in”.

What makes you think I wasn’t interested?

You were more interested in Hitler! Der Furore. He`s certainly caused a furore on this thread! (The misspelling was deliberate.)

Theres nothing ***gay*** in acting out a same-sex orientation! Its depraved! At least in the case of what two men get up to.
What two women get up to, i dont know, and dont want to know.
Sorry: that word bugs me to hell. Hence the “SSA” usage which i still think shows more respect for the people concerned. These people have a terrible cross to carry; and i know it; so they have my sympathy.

There’s no point in “arguing” with you if you’re not going to listen to what I’m trying to say.

The trouble is: each of us in our own mind thinks that our very own post is OK. To anyone else, it might be “as clear as mud”! Were both guilty of it, along with most other CAF posters. Theres been a terminology problem, here. Sorry to have confused you a few times.
The fact that i call certain people evil, doesnt mean that i dont wish the best for them: ie salvation. But: their vocal public “demonstrating” has to be countered, because ultimately, it`s demonically-driven.

We should give this thread a decent burial…

 

[LemonAndLime]

All I want to say is that why did you go on a rant about gay marriage? I said I did not agree with gay marriage. I did say though that they should have the right to vote, etc - general rights. That goes without saying.

Also, no - radical feminists are not necessary lesbian and aren’t necessarily interested in gay rights. They’re interested in women’s rights. Someone who goes to the point where they say they hate men is not a feminist. The same way you would say someone who beats up homosexuals is not a Catholic - they’re misinterpreting the beliefs of their peers and are going to extremes and violence. Feminists are often stereotyped as lesbians who hate men and you’re just taking that opinion.

 

[SunnaB16]

All I want to say is that why did you go on a rant about gay marriage? I said I did not agree with gay marriage. I did say though that they should have the right to vote, etc - general rights. That goes without saying.

Because “gay” marriage is just not on! The reason was given: its totally ***BARREN***, apart from being perverted. Also mentioned that*** the Churchs teaching on this can be traced back to the very inner Life of God.* You cant go any deeper than that! Ditto for the Churchs teaching on contraception.

Man and Woman have different sex organs for a reason; and those organs are not to be misused, either on ones own or as a twosome. Dont forget that there are restrictions placed on husbands and wives, as well, during sexual relations.

Also, no - radical feminists are not necessary lesbian and aren’t necessarily interested in gay rights. They’re interested in women’s rights. Someone who goes to the point where they say they hate men is not a feminist. The same way you would say someone who beats up homosexuals is not a Catholic - they’re misinterpreting the beliefs of their peers and are going to extremes and violence. Feminists are often stereotyped as lesbians who hate men and you’re just taking that opinion.

We`re going to have to agree to disagree.

i didnt say that ALL*** radical*** feminists are lesbian, nor infer that*** radical*** feminists are interested in "gay" "rights". The only thing theyre (the R Fs) interested in is SELF!

Cant help feeling that youre not fully aware of the depth of hatred and venom among radical feminists. The late Mary Daly is just one example. Keep in mind that i`m emphasising the woed "radical".

Try to get hold of Donna Steichens book: "Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Side of Catholic Feminism"; published by Ignatius Press. What she details is so sickening i refused to believe it; but it was verified by other sources. It goes through lesbianism, goddess paganism, witchcraft, ad nauseum. All of this among some groups of nuns, as well! But, were straying.

Anyway, just like the vocal SSA lifestyle promoters, theyre demonically driven; whether they know it or not. As far as im concerned: if one of these pressure groups were asked its name, it`d have to say:
“My name is Legion; for we are many.” Mark 5:9 RSV.
The same goes for the abortion promoters et al.
Dare we also include that group of monsters in Baghdad?

 

[LemonAndLime]

I don’t understand why you’re emphasising gay marriage again. I said I agree so why do you keep bringing it up as if I just said I don’t?

Also, I am very aware of radical “feminism”. And also the opposite. I studied American Feminism - and wrote an essay about it, using a piece of literature as the starting point. I know a lot about ERA, concerned women for America, etc etc. I recommend you add “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood to your reading list. It’s about what happens when no sign of feminism exists in America and biblical precedence is used to dictate women’s lives. It’s not anti-Catholic, or anti-Christian - every single thing that happens in that book has happened in real life to women (either biblical or present day) and its a social warning book, similar to Orwell/Animal Farm etc but not as famous. The woman who wrote it is a feminist but in the true sense of the word - she campaigns for women’s equality in the workplace, etc etc. She was concerned however by groups like the concerned women for America - those women who were campaigning to have their rights removed, and in her book she writes about what might happen in modern-day American if they got their wish, basically.

 

[SunnaB16]

I don’t understand why you’re emphasising gay marriage again. I said I agree so why do you keep bringing it up as if I just said I don’t?

Sorry: Misread your second sentence. Please, though: could you consider dropping that word “gay”! Theres nothing gay about it when they act it out! "Gay" used to mean happy and carefree. What those perverted practitioners of sodomy do isnt gay! i`m NOT referring to the SSA folks who try to live chaste lives!

Also, I am very aware of radical “feminism”. And also the opposite. I studied American Feminism…

…She was concerned however by groups like the concerned women for America - those women who were campaigning to have their rights removed, and in her book she writes about what might happen in modern-day American if they got their wish, basically.

Well have to agree to disagree on that one, as well. i dont think Margaret Atwood`s output is the last word on the feminism issue.

Why have so many women decided that being wives and mothers is second rate? Don`t bother replying… Do The Concerned Women for America think that marriage and motherhood are noble vocations? (That vulgar phrase: “barefoot and pregnant” is offensive to women with maternal instincts!)

How many men are out of work because they`ve been pushed out by women? So much for “the wage earner”! This out of control consumer society has a lot to answer for.

Dont get the idea that i like the way Muslim men treat their wives (and daughters). But, please dont try to tell me that all wives were downtrodden until the feminists came along to “liberate” them. A hell of a lot of (if not most) women know how to manipulate their husbands. Thats not including the blatantly domineering women; and there are many of those. im referring only to the West.
On paper, men may have dominated. In reality… not necessarily so.

Way off topic yet again.

Why won`t this thread do the decent thing, and die?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Sorry: Misread your second sentence. Please, though: could you consider dropping that word “gay”! Theres nothing gay about it when they act it out! "Gay" used to mean happy and carefree. What those perverted practitioners of sodomy do isnt gay! i`m NOT referring to the SSA folks who try to live chaste lives!

Well have to agree to disagree on that one, as well. i dont think Margaret Atwood`s output is the last word on the feminism issue.

Why have so many women decided that being wives and mothers is second rate? Don`t bother replying… Do The Concerned Women for America think that marriage and motherhood are noble vocations? (That vulgar phrase: “barefoot and pregnant” is offensive to women with maternal instincts!)

How many men are out of work because they`ve been pushed out by women? So much for “the wage earner”! This out of control consumer society has a lot to answer for.

Dont get the idea that i like the way Muslim men treat their wives (and daughters). But, please dont try to tell me that all wives were downtrodden until the feminists came along to “liberate” them. A hell of a lot of (if not most) women know how to manipulate their husbands. Thats not including the blatantly domineering women; and there are many of those. Again, im referring only to the West.
On paper, men may have dominated. In reality… not necessarily so.

Way off topic yet again.

Why won`t this thread do the decent thing, and die?

Wow. I can’t believe you’re against women getting into work “because they’ve pushed men out.” Women have the right to work, same as men. Also - true feminists are about choice not demonising women who choose to be a stay at home mom. That’s not part of true feminism and I think you need to re-educate yourself about it.

I am offended by you implying that dominating women are a bad thing. Some men are incapable of looking after themselves and some women naturally take the lead in relationships. Doesn’t mean they’re against staying at home. My mum “wears the trousers” in my parents relationships but she’s always been happy to be a stay at home mom. I however work as a nurse and do not want that right to be taken from me, or to be told that by working as a nurse I’m “pushing a man out of his job”.

The Concerned women for America campaigning against an amendment which would have meant they would have the legal right to be considored for a job on the same level as a man. Why? If a woman chooses to work she should have the right. If a woman chooses to stay at home and raise kids then she should have the right to make that decision also. If the CWFA really cared about women, they would let them have the choice. That is feminism.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Thats not what I asked. i asked :How do you recommned we show compassion to people who engage in homosecxual behavior? I recommned one lovingly tell them they are puting their immortal soul in danger and pray for them.

You didnt answer.

They cant. Now having disposed of that strawman ill ask you again:

How do you recommned we show compassion to people who engage in homosecxual behavior? ?

 

[SunnaB16]

Wow. I can’t believe you’re against women getting into work “because they’ve pushed men out.” Women have the right to work, same as men. Also - true feminists are about choice not demonising women who choose to be a stay at home mom. That’s not part of true feminism and I think you need to re-educate yourself about it.

Feminism is a two-edged sword; and it hasn`t benefitted women as much as some would like to think.

I am offended by you implying that dominating women are a bad thing. Some men are incapable of looking after themselves and some women naturally take the lead in relationships. Doesn’t mean they’re against staying at home. My mum “wears the trousers” in my parents relationships but she’s always been happy to be a stay at home mom. I however work as a nurse and do not want that right to be taken from me, or to be told that by working as a nurse I’m “pushing a man out of his job”.

Theres a difference between ***dominating*** and ***domineering.*** Having experienced ***domineering*** women, i can understand why some men go to the "pub", and drink themselves blind! Thats not the answer, of course.
What youre working in is traditionally a womans vocation, anyway.

The Concerned women for America campaigning against an amendment which would have meant they would have the legal right to be considored for a job on the same level as a man. Why? If a woman chooses to work she should have the right. If a woman chooses to stay at home and raise kids then she should have the right to make that decision also. If the CWFA really cared about women, they would let them have the choice. That is feminism.

As per first comment.
At the age of 56, ive probably seen more than you have. As said before: theres a hell of a difference between how it looks on paper, and the reality.
The collapse of respect for women among themselves since the early 1960s has been frightening. Calling women by only their surnames makes me sick. Where`s the respect?

Once, a young bloke was only too happy to take his girl anywhere in his own vehicle, buy her meals, pay for her ticket at the cinema, etc. Now, his attitude would be: “Why should I?” A wedge has been driven between the two; and the consequences cant be put into words. The unfortunate side effects go far beyond the material. So, again, your "gains" arent as wonderful as you like to think.

Without knowing specifics about them, it sounds like The Concerned Women For America have valid arguments; so look beyond the purely monetary/material aspect of your “gains”. Time will show that your supposed gains have been outweighed by the losses…the damage done. Again, its something that cant be put into words.

Off topic, yet again; and im totally sick of this thread! im done with the feminism argument; and wont respond to any more of it. Just try to look beyond your purely material arguments; and try to get a glimpse of what future historians will see (not Margaret Atwood or Germaine Greer or Helen Reddy with her "I am woman, hear me roar......"). Call me whatever you like; but the truth will eventually stare you in the face. i wont be alive to see it, though.