Thread: So Pacquiao in a spot of bother..states he "disagrees" with same sex marriage..

Personally don't think it's that bad what he has said..I'm sure many people hold the same stance. It's just that he has foolishly commited PR suicide. Why the fuck would you say it being one of, if not the most prominent boxer on the planet??

Obviosuly Floyd has jumped over this and Tweeted how he supports Obamas stance on gay marriage.

These two are a pair of clowns - for all their entourage members..not 1 fucker tells them it's a bad idea to say you disagree with gay marriage or that people will probably not take kindly to you playing the race card with Jeremy Lin..

Anyway I'm sure this will all blow over like the Lin thing did..Didn't seem to hurt Floyd one bit..

But rumour has it that Pacs fight after Bradley is a grudge rematch against Cotto..catchweight of 130 so Cotto can fit into some skinny jeans and Pac can beat the fuck out of him for sharing night hugs with his big buddy, Perez.

Remember where you heard it first

1-Why is Pac being asked about gay marriage?

Because he is a top athlete?
Top athletes aren't asked very much about domestic policy issues in general, much less this issue.

Because he is a politican in the Phillippinnes- well he isn't a politician in the US. If foreign government officials are in the US are they asked about US domestic policy issues?? No. If Cameron or Merkel or Ayrault came to the US to visit Obama, any interviews they might do with any media source in the US would focus on relations between the countries, global economic issues, war. The likelihood of one of them being asked about gay marriage is not very high.

So once again why was he even asked? He was interviewed by the National Conservative Examiner. They were looking to find someone who would be against gay marriage and Pac was a likely candidate, if you do any research on his background.

So they set it up ,and Pac being the uneducated (and not too bright) political novice that he is, stepped right into it.

Why was John Lennon asked for his views on Vietnam? Why was Pac asked for his views on gay marriage? Because they are well known individuals and have views. One individual was lucid and to the point in his observations and the other has shown himself to be a primitive, hateful Bible basher. I have no problem with Pac being asked something. He wasn't set up, he hung himself with his own words.

I find his views deplorable, but it is what it is. It just means more people want to see him lose.

it's a personal opinion. where's freedom of speech? No need for Pacman apologize to anyone

Who fucking cares if he agrees with this that or the other , he is a boxer ,

the end.

I see nothing wrong with that, he was merely voicing his stance on the issue. I share his views on the matter, but not basing it on religion like he does. Unless he goes out of his way to directly prevent a gay couple from being married, why should anyone be offended? Aren't the gay community demanding others to be more tolerant on their views? Why can't they practice what they preach when it comes to this issue? He was asked a question and he answered it truthfully unlike most politicians nowadays who'd just jump on the popular social/religious/political view bandwagons despite believing otherwise merely to attract more voters (I'm looking at you Obama). He didn't come of as inciting hatred nor did he preach or sound condescending.

Originally Posted by arcanum26

I see nothing wrong with that, he was merely voicing his stance on the issue. I share his views on the matter, but not basing it on religion like he does. Unless he goes out of his way to directly prevent a gay couple from being married, why should anyone be offended? Aren't the gay community demanding others to be more tolerant on their views? Why can't they practice what they preach when it comes to this issue? He was asked a question and he answered it truthfully unlike most politicians nowadays who'd just jump on the popular social/religious/political view bandwagons despite believing otherwise merely to attract more voters (I'm looking at you Obama). He didn't come of as inciting hatred nor did he preach or sound condescending.

Tolerance means accepting the rights of consensual homosexual adults who demand the same treatment by law as heterosexual couples. Pac's statement was based upon hate, there is no other reason to discriminate against homosexuals. People make laws for other people. There is no such thing as God's law which Pac seemingly refers to. The fictional God was a vengeful and hateful type and thus man made words accredited to him should be ignored.

Gay's have every right to be disappointed with Manny Pac and likewise anyone who thinks in such a philistine manner.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al

Who fucking cares if he agrees with this that or the other , he is a boxer ,

the end.

He is also a politician. Manny and his views do have an effect upon people and their way of life, he should be called out accordingly.

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Originally Posted by arcanum26

I see nothing wrong with that, he was merely voicing his stance on the issue. I share his views on the matter, but not basing it on religion like he does. Unless he goes out of his way to directly prevent a gay couple from being married, why should anyone be offended? Aren't the gay community demanding others to be more tolerant on their views? Why can't they practice what they preach when it comes to this issue? He was asked a question and he answered it truthfully unlike most politicians nowadays who'd just jump on the popular social/religious/political view bandwagons despite believing otherwise merely to attract more voters (I'm looking at you Obama). He didn't come of as inciting hatred nor did he preach or sound condescending.

Tolerance means accepting the rights of consensual homosexual adults who demand the same treatment by law as heterosexual couples. Pac's statement was based upon hate, there is no other reason to discriminate against homosexuals. People make laws for other people. There is no such thing as God's law which Pac seemingly refers to. The fictional God was a vengeful and hateful type and thus man made words accredited to him should be ignored.

Gay's have every right to be disappointed with Manny Pac and likewise anyone who thinks in such a philistine manner.

Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Why would you need to tolerate something you already approve of? It means the practice of permitting something that a person disapproves of and being fair and objective about it. So far, Pac in his stance/statements has been exactly that. As far as I know he never discriminated a person based on his sexual preference nor prevented and denied gay people from marrying each other. He even has a number of gay people employed in his businesses and I never heard him say offensive homophobic words like f*ggot (I'm looking at you... oh never mind).

So what you are implying is that anyone who disapproves gay marriage should be lambasted and vilified by the gay community and their supporters? I don't approve of it, but I don't hate gays for being who they are. I never held grudges nor condemned them to eternal damnation for marrying each other. You need to disassociate the words disapproval with hatred as they don't always go hand in hand with each other. I have a number of gay friends and in all honesty never gave an arse of what they do with each other as long as they keep it to themselves. If I tell them I am against them marrying each other, and knowing these people, I know they would take no offense to my personal beliefs as long as I keep it that way, personal.

Originally Posted by arcanum26

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Originally Posted by arcanum26

I see nothing wrong with that, he was merely voicing his stance on the issue. I share his views on the matter, but not basing it on religion like he does. Unless he goes out of his way to directly prevent a gay couple from being married, why should anyone be offended? Aren't the gay community demanding others to be more tolerant on their views? Why can't they practice what they preach when it comes to this issue? He was asked a question and he answered it truthfully unlike most politicians nowadays who'd just jump on the popular social/religious/political view bandwagons despite believing otherwise merely to attract more voters (I'm looking at you Obama). He didn't come of as inciting hatred nor did he preach or sound condescending.

Tolerance means accepting the rights of consensual homosexual adults who demand the same treatment by law as heterosexual couples. Pac's statement was based upon hate, there is no other reason to discriminate against homosexuals. People make laws for other people. There is no such thing as God's law which Pac seemingly refers to. The fictional God was a vengeful and hateful type and thus man made words accredited to him should be ignored.

Gay's have every right to be disappointed with Manny Pac and likewise anyone who thinks in such a philistine manner.

Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Why would you need to tolerate something you already approve of? It means the practice of permitting something that a person disapproves of and being fair and objective about it. So far, Pac in his stance/statements has been exactly that. As far as I know he never discriminated a person based on his sexual preference nor prevented and denied gay people from marrying each other. He even has a number of gay people employed in his businesses and I never heard him say offensive homophobic words like f*ggot (I'm looking at you... oh never mind).

So what you are implying is that anyone who disapproves gay marriage should be lambasted and vilified by the gay community and their supporters? I don't approve of it, but I don't hate gays for being who they are. I never held grudges nor condemned them to eternal damnation for marrying each other. You need to disassociate the words disapproval with hatred as they don't always go hand in hand with each other. I have a number of gay friends and in all honesty never gave an arse of what they do with each other as long as they keep it to themselves. If I tell them I am against them marrying each other, and knowing these people, I know they would take no offense to my personal beliefs as long as I keep it that way, personal.

I believe that anyone in the gay community has every right to be angry at Manny for what he said. Of course so. Our words and beliefs are what shape us and in expressing such sentiments Manny has shown himself to be prejudiced against a minority group. It is like saying that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites or rich people marry poor people. People above a certain age should be free to marry whomever they like as long as it is consensual. It is blatant discrimination to be against gay marriage. Any open minded person should be for gay marriage and a book like the Bible is irrelevant to the argument. Society constructs laws, not religion.

People should get called out when they fuck up. It's happened to me in the past and Manny seems to be doing it now. Thus he is getting called out. The only way for Manny to redeem himself is to sleep with Buboy in a future 24/7.

Dude. Ehh.

. Everyone knows Manny is a devout christian, which is a lifestyle choice just like being gay or being married. Whatever your opinion about that it in itself may be his views are merely in line with his faith and nothing to be up in arms about. Denouncing gay marriage isn't even close to discriminatory from a religious standpoint, which like it or not is still a lot more accepted than being gay most anywhere let alone in America. This really isn't anything to be discussing so heatedly.

Religion is based upon absolutely nothing and that's why it bothers me to hear failed Christians like Manny waffle on about gay marriage being against God's law. God doesn't even exist so where do these rules come from? A man written book from ages ago? What gives the Bible any precedent in how our societies are governed and ruled?

It irritates me to hear Christians spouting their tosh because it is fundamentally absurd and is a hindrance to understanding and progress. They deny science and they deny reason. I am glad to see people getting annoyed with Manny.

His views should be seen as archaic and of a world that needs to be washed away.

I agree with you, but it's nothing new that Manny is religious and this isn't anything people should take to heart. I was only pointing out that it's nothing which will bring him any sort of bad press, it's still a fairly common stance taken on every political level there is in America.

You are right and it is sad that America is still so primitive in its thinking. I despise people who tolerate prejudice. Do we refuse Jews or blacks the right to marry? Interracial couples? Of course not and yet homosexuals still have to fight on for their rights. It is sad that anyone would want to deny someone the basic opportunity to share a life with love and with the full support of the law on their side.

The arguments against it make no sense whatsoever. It typically boils down to 'It doesn't seem right'. Well people would have said the same thing about a black woman marrying a white woman a hundred years ago. Get over it, get over yourselves, stick God in your pocket and be nice to each other without making up stuff to deny the happiness of others.