Yesterday, I discussed a major point I've been building up to: the fact that men and women can do different things, while still being equal. The existence of an all-male group doesn't take anything away from women, in the same way the existence of an all-female group doesn't take anything away from men.
That's true in general, but what about the specific case of the priesthood? Does an all-male priesthood take away from women? No.
Some people argue that the all-male priesthood does take away from women, as it deprives them of spiritual graces, positions of power within church hierarchy, and the ability to run a church. This is clearly false, as there are women who have all these things. Also false is the idea that lies underneath this argument, which is "priests are better than non-priests".
On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have people who argue that "priests are exactly the same as non-priests". This is also false. The people who favor this argument see no reason why women can't become priests, as they feel there is nothing special about it. If the priesthood is just a job, women should be allowed to be priests. After all, many women can do a better job than men at community organizing, public speaking and other things that priests do.
I think I'll stop for comments at this point. A problem we're seeing is that people have an incorrect notion of what the priesthood is. What do you readers think? What does it mean to be a priest? How are priests different from non-priests? And if you disagree with the statement that the all-male priesthood takes nothing away from women, what does it take away from women?