Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: pope may be good on 1% - 99% BUT

Posted 5 years ago on March 15, 2013, 8:14 a.m. EST by mideast (506)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Pope Francis: Misogyny, homophobia, bigotry March 14, 2013 By: Michael Stone

Pope Francis says
that women are unfit for political office,
that gay adoption is child abuse and that same sex-marriage seriously damages the family.

In short, the new pope is just another religious bigot, with a record of misogyny and homophobia.

In a public flurry of pomp and ostentatious display, the former Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Primate of Argentina, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was named Pope Francis on Wednesday, March 13. However, Pope Francis comes with some heavy and disturbing baggage. Francis is on record stating that women are nothing more than the helpers of men, and are themselves unfit for political office.
In a speech against Argentina presidential candidate Cristina Kirchner given in 2007, during the electoral campaign, then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio said:
Women are naturally unfit for political office. Both the natural order and facts show us that the political being par excellence is male;
the Scripture shows us that woman has always been the helper of man who thinks and does, but nothing more.

In addition to the blatant misogyny, Francis is also on record speaking out forcefully against laws granting marriage and adoption rights for gay men and lesbians. In a 2010 letter published in L’Osservatore Romano, he asserted that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children, and claimed same sex marriage would “seriously damage the family.”

Francis even went so far as to suggest that the struggle for marriage equality is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to "destroy God’s plan, a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”


I note how he uses parts of his book, but not all:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.

==========================================================------------------------- Bible also says its ok to stone adulterers and rape victims to death:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

does this make him a homophobic bigot?

The 6 Most Homophobic Things The New Pope said
Zach Nikonovich-Kahn

  1. On gay marriage legislation: "Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God."

  2. Also on gay marriage: "[It is] a move by the Father of Lies which aims to confuse and deceive the children of God."

  3. On gay couples adopting: "At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in being deprived of the human growth that God wanted to be given through a father and a mother."

  4. Also on gay couples adopting: "Children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother."

  5. "[Gay marriage] is a situation whose result may gravely destroy the family. The identity of the family, and its survival, are in jeopardy here: father, mother, and children."

  6. On gay marriage: "Here, the envy of the Devil, through which sin entered the world, is also present, and deceitfully intends to destroy the image of God."

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with gay marriage, it doesn't mean you are a homophobe.

[-] 2 points by mideast (506) 5 years ago

generally, I dont like labels, but if you look at his ENTIRE track record
the conclusion is obvious He obviously believes that homosexuals & women should not have the same rights as straight men


Should parents follow Bible to kill their children who curse?

According to the Bible, any child who curse their parents MUST put to death.

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Jesus said to follow the Old Testament
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
( Matthew 5:17 )

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Things were different back then and you're not supposed to take everything the bible says literally.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Seems bigoted to me. It's certainly anti gay. Why would you disagree with gay marriage?. Why does anybody but the people involved get to decide if someone can marry?


[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

It's not anit gay, it's anit gay marriage, he and all normal Christians don't hatee gay people. We just disagree witht he concept of gay marriage. We believe it is between a man and a woman, we don't hate gays.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Question remains., Why? What does it matter to you? It doesn't hurt you or anyone.. What do you have against gay people marrying.?

Unless you're gay I think your opinion is irrelevant

[-] 1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

It matters to me because gay marriage goes against my religon, I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman,that's how it has always been and that's how it should be. Gays have weber right to be together but I think that gay marriage ruins marriage. I know that sounds harsh, but thats what I believe and so do many others.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Spring, do you ever wonder why being gay is considered a sin? After all, gay people were born into this world just like the rest of us which makes them as much G-d's children as the rest of us. I've done a lot of thinking about this topic and frankly, it just seems that religious zealots fail to acknowledge the biological and genetic makeup that contribute to the unique differences between hetero and homosexuals and focus solely on the sexual behavior. Being gay seems to connote something evil by some religions- but why? Is it economic, political, medical? It's very rare that I ever hear about an evil crime against humanity committed by a gay person. Maybe not having children is perceived as evil but they do adopt and provide loving homes to many otherwise, abandoned children.

I often wonder if at the time the Bible scriptures were written if homosexuality was forbidden and discouraged because it was necessary at the time for the Israelites to increase and multiply in order to gain power. The other reason may be that any behavior outside of the norm would be considered ' radical' and disruptive to the cohesion of a group. Also, there was a lot of incest and other risque sexual behavior going on and it led to lack of civility, disease and poor genetics. Even King Tut was genetically flawed. In Biblical times, civil cohesiveness was very necessary to the survival of a people. There were not as many people then as there are today and a disease or war could much more easily wipe out a group of people.

I'm truly not disrespecting your religion or personal beliefs, just sharing some of my personal thoughts on the topic. I would be interested to know more about why your religion is anti-gay.

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

The reason it is a sin is because it says in the bible that a man laying with another man is wrong. I don't believe that an individual is born gay, it s their choice to be gay and it is a sin.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

But, interestingly, it does not say that it's wrong for a woman to lye next to another woman. And, this sort of goes along with the current male mentality that two women together is sexy but that two men is raunchy.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

You haven't answered my question though. Jesus wanted you to seek answers and not choose His way blindly and without understanding. Surely you have asked yourself what that Bible passage means?

The words in the Bible were not meant to be read or recited in vain. It's important for everyone to examine them, question them and do their best to understand their meaning.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

I don't just blindly follow it, I've gone to Christian schools my whole life and I have questioned it many times. I know what I believe in and I don't just blindly follow it.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33475) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

R U without sin? Cast the 1st stone if so. But U R not without sin - SO - shut-up.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 5 years ago

As a heterosexual person, could you choose to be gay? Obviously the thought is so repulsive you would never consider it. It's not a matter of choice at all, is it?

Because a person is a man or woman on the outside doesn't mean that their brain is on the inside.

[-] 0 points by urbanguy (-67) 5 years ago

Leviticus 19:19

nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material

what's your take on a poly/cotton blend shirt?

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

That is truly a sin urbanguy! Have you ever slept on poly cotton sheets? OUCH

[-] 0 points by urbanguy (-67) 5 years ago

You know, your'e right. That's probably not the best example, especially if you've seen my dad in his summer clothes.

I do like the idea of a church bbq where people hang out and talk about how being gay is a sin while eating pork sandwiches.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Stick with organic cotton and you'll be guaranteed a happy ending.

Just saw that very BBQ last week! I had the same thought! How/why is it that Christians eat so much pork?

[-] -1 points by urbanguy (-67) 5 years ago

Because Christian men don't feel guilty when they fantasize about eating pork.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 5 years ago

Ah, yes. Well, given that ALL men do have filthy minds, it makes perfect sense that they would fantasize about swine. Remember though not to cast your pearls before swine. Make sure that it's at least a well educated and attractive pig if you must.

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

You're taking that verse out of context. You're not supposed to take everything from the bible literally.

[-] 0 points by urbanguy (-67) 5 years ago

Are you saying that I married my brother's widow for no good reason? NOW you tell me?

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

You're misunderstanding me.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

How does expanding the institution of marriage "ruin" the institution of marriage?

[-] -3 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Since homosexuality is between two of the same sex it corrupts it.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

How does same sex marriage corrupt a dual sex marriage.?

Do the dual sex married couples feel a need to divorce just because same sex people marry, or is their an overwhelming feeling to divorce when dual sex married couples come near?

Seriously HOW does same sex marriage corrupt marriage? How does the corruption manifest itself.

If that can be explained you might stem the tide of growing support for gay marriage. I just heard a republican leader state that more than half of republicans under 40 support same sex marriage.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

The medal of honor is awarded to soldiers who demonstrate extraordinary bravery and courage in battle. It’s a small gesture of appreciation to acknowledge and honor those who risk their lives for their fellows and for the good of society. Suppose, in the name of equality, the military decided that only awarding the medal to brave soldiers was discriminatory. Why should only brave soldiers have the right to be honored this way? Suppose they redefine the medal of honor to be an honor for all soldiers, just because they are soldiers. Is it true that the new and improved ‘inclusive’ medal of honor doesn’t affect those men who originally received the medal because of their bravery and sacrifice? Is it true that making the medal more inclusive has changed nothing important? Of course not. Because now it’s merely about being a soldier, not being an extraordinarily brave soldier. Bravery was the whole point of the medal, it was its essence. Without bravery, the honor has no meaning, no reason to exist. In order to be about bravery, it had to be exclusive. Bravery is not equal to cowardice; it’s not equal to mediocrity; it’s not equal to selfishness. Of course, brave soldiers will still get the award. But only because all soldiers get the award. Bravery is no longer the point. That’s why the new medal is an insult to the soldiers who recieved the old medal becuase of their bravery, and is meaningless to the soldiers who are brave now and will be brave in the future. Bravery has been forgotten. Society no longer honors and protects it. One little change to the medal of honor to make it more inclusive, to make it equal, has destroyed its essential meaning. And that is what’s happening with marriage. The essence of marriage is a sexual union which is fruitful, life-giving, and community-building. The loving union of man and woman alone organically generates families, and no technology can ever replace that. Neither can gay marriage replace it or be included in it, because no real sexual union even exists between members of the same sex. To force marriage to include same sex couples is to deny and ignore that exclusive and unique union that only men and women are capable of. And when society turns its back on marriage, it stops honoring the courageous and selfless lives of mothers and fathers. The only reason marriage has ever existed as an institution was to safeguard, honor, and acknowledge that union through which life itself humanely passes. The institution of marriage, with its legal and social benefits, was the state’s Medal of Honor to husbands and wives. It was their way of honoring that sacred bond which is the root of society. But gay marriage makes all that meaningless. Sure, men and women will still get married. They will continue to offer their lives in service to society, bringing forth the next generation and courageously raising them. But the unique union between a man and woman will be beside the point. Whatever that new point is, it has nothing to do with life or real marriage.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Marriage is not a reward and so your analogy has no relevance. Sorry.

"Marriage is a sexual union"? Not only, some married couples do not have sex, but so what, gay people have sex.

"Marriage is about procreation" Not exclusively. Some married couples don't have children. Some cannot. Some adopt. Gay couples can certainly adopt, Lesbians can carry, men can use surrogates.

So marriage will be strengthened as more people enter into that union.

No one is hurt be other married couples union.

Marriage IS hurt by the wife beating, adultery and resulting divorces though.

Why don't you and your religion focus on those REAL threats and leave the loving gay people who are strengthening marriage alone.?

Maybe we'll even give you a medal if you can do that and come into the 21st century.


[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Gay marriage does ruin the institution of marriage. We're obviously going now where with this. You have you're beliefs and I have mine.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

The divorce rate is well past 50%. Straight people ruined it already. Get over yourself.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Thanks to no fault divorce, it's become an easy money cottage industry for lawyers. Definitely the most over paid underworked bunch of the lot.

Geeze, you get another twinkle from me............:)

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

So gays are going to magically fix the institution of marriage?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

The difference is I can express logically my position, you keep saying gay marriage "ruins" marriage but have failed to show how. The medal analogy does not apply because marriage is not a reward.

In addition you do not acknowledge the real ruination of marriage that I (and others) have brought up.

The wife beating, adultery and resulting divorces

That is what hurts marriages.

So since you express no outrage at the real ruination of marriage, and have failed miserably at describing how gay marriage is ruinous, I think you must admit that you just don't like gay people.

And so once you embrace your bigotry you can begin the process of entering the modern era, lift up our gay brothers who are strengthening marriage by entering into committed loving unions without the abusive, adulterous ruination that straight people have perpetrated upon our society.

We will support your maturing, progress on this modern day issue.

Good luck.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Homosexuals are seeking a special right. They already have the same right to marry the rest of us have-the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. It denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. Opposite-sex marriage is the natural means by which the human race reproduces. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural. It would be a state-sanctioned counterfeit, a sham and a fraud. A licensed electrician cannot produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together. Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body and powerless for human reproduction. Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it. Homosexual marriage is as wrong as giving a man a license to marry his mother or daughter or sister or a group. Homosexual marriage will harm children by denying them the love and nurture of a mom and dad. The only "procreation" homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship. Granting a marriage license to homosexuals because they engage in sex is as illogical as granting a medical license to a barber because he wears a white coat or a law license to a salesman because he carries a briefcase. Real doctors, lawyers and the public would suffer as a result of licensing the unqualified and granting them rights, benefits and responsibilities as if they were qualified. Homosexual marriage will devalue your marriage. A license to marry is a legal document by which government will treat same-sex marriage as if it were equal to the real thing. A license speaks for the government and will tell society that government says the marriages are equal. Any time a lesser thing is made equal to a greater, the greater is devalued. For example: If the Smithsonian Museum displays a hunk of polished blue glass next to the Hope Diamond with a sign that says, "These are of equal value," and treats them as if they were, the Hope Diamond is devalued in the public's eye. The government says it's just expensive blue glass. The history and mystery are lost too. If an employer uses a robot as an employee and treats the robot the same way it treats human employees, human employees are devalued. By doing so, the employer says, "A robot can do your job, you're no better." What will you and the public think of your job and you? If the government issues a license to babysitters that grants them the same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents, parenthood is devalued. The government says parents are just babysitters. If government grants professional licenses to just anybody, every profession and qualified professional is devalued. The government says an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery. The assumption by many is that marriage is just two people with a license who have sex and wear rings. Homosexuals do that?why not give them the license? Engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage. Adults involved in incest have sex too; should government call it marriage and license them? Certainly not. The biggest problem we have in getting people, especially younger ones, to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit is that much of the public does not value marriage at all. Adultery is no big deal. No- fault divorce is tolerated. Absentee fathers and mothers devalue marriage. Unmarried pregnancies are common. Fornication is "normal." When we make the case against homosexual marriage, we need to speak against these other problems that devalue marriage too. As we acknowledge these problems we can emphasize that legalizing homosexual marriage will compound the problems, not solve or lessen them.

I don't hate gays at all and I'm not a biggot.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33475) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

just a long winded idiot.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Kinda like it reformated when he pasted it in here.

It says at the bottom, he's not a biggot. That's what he actually wrote.

That would leave bigot wide open for him.

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Please tell me how I am an idiot.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

The religious view of gay people IS bigoted. For you tosite it kinda DOES make you bigoted. Sorry.

'sok, just embrace it. lotsa people use religion to hate on people. Non believers, women, hell it was used to justify slavery for centuries.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 5 years ago

First off, you give way too much credit to the dilapidated institution of marriage. If it were not for the economic benefits that come with marriage, I don't believe homosexuals would even care whether they could get married or not.

If it was not for hospital regulations that stipulate, only family and spouses can visit patients, homosexuals would probably laugh at you for all the money and time you invest in such pageantries. I know some of us heterosexuals do.

If I were you, I'd be glad that homosexuals are stoked about marriage. By the look of the numbers that institution isn't doing so well.


I'll give you your point that marriage is more of religious institution than a political creation, but as long as our society favors that institution more highly, there should be no barring certain citizens from earning those benefits.

The relegation of homosexuals to second class citizens, through the denial of marriage, could be seen as a violation of civil rights. I believe Republicans can save face while embracing reality if they would only champion for the rights of homosexuals to have civil unions. This way they placate their religious base while embracing the new norm.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Disagreeing does not make you a bigot but judging a large group of people as unnatural and not worthy of a basic right (marriage) we all expect seems bigoted & homophobic.

You claim your objection is about preserving marriage but have said nothing about the real ruination of marriage (violence/adultery) so I guess you are not honest aout your concern for the institution of marriage.

You site religious reasons as well, That is obviously based on anti gay bigotry.

Perhaps you just don't know it, but I think you do know and just can't admit it.

What about adoption, do you support gay adoption.?

[-] -1 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Sighting religous reasons is not based on anti gay bigotry.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33475) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I believe others have already done that. Slow on the uptake - Hey?

[-] 0 points by Spring13 (-13) 5 minutes ago

Please tell me how I am an idiot. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

You are misguided. You have been brainwashed by your bronze age ideology.

This is obvious because you have shown that YOU have no understanding of the what the value of marriage is. Procreating is an important part but gay couples can do that (3rd parties allowed!!) Even Sex and "the union of the flesh" which of course gay couples can achieve. A little differently but we need to stay out of the bedroom and respect our privacy.

No the real value which you neglected to mention is not about robots, or diamonds, it's not about having babies or sex.

It's about love. 2 people (unrelated!!!) meet, fall in love and decide to commit to each other. To be a partnership in this difficult world. Children usually come but it ain't required.

The Love to face the world as a couple is the bedrock of marriage.

Which is why gay people should be able to marry. No special right/privilege required.

It is also why the wife beating, adulterous ruinous behavior that leads to divorce IS the REAL threat to the institution of marriage.

Is your silence on that reality proof abuse/adultery are ok with you? Is your silence proof you don't care about marriage but only the withholding of marriage from a particular group of people.?

Your rant is obviously dripping with resentment towards gay people. Your obvious bigoted hatred is certainly not very christian, but I must remind you that Jesus and the invisible old white man in the sky with superpowers is as real as mother goose.

Please put down the bronze age fairy tales and try to get up to date in the new millennium.

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

"It's about love. 2 people (unrelated!!!) meet, fall in love and decide to commit to each other. To be a partnership in this difficult world. Children usually come but it ain't required."

So why do people in love and commit to eachother have to get married? Why does anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, have to have a marrige to face the world (rather than just "living in sin" as one person might put it)?

And why "unrelated!!!"? What would be wrong with mutual consenting adult mothers and daughters or fathers and sons being in love and sexually expressing their love with eachother? It's not like any children with dangerous recessive genes are going to result from them. Such people could even have parades.

[-] -2 points by Spring13 (-58) 5 years ago

Whatever, I'm not a biggot and I haven't said anything that attests to that. Disagreeing with something doesn't mean you're a biggot and a homophobe.


[-] 1 points by urbanguy (-67) 5 years ago

Doesn't divorce "corrupt" marriage then? Should we make that illegal?