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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcanum26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

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.

:rolleyes:. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcanum26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

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.

---

Youve gotta admit though. It would be great to be totally religous. knowing that when you die your gonna go to a place of pure bliss. Im not religous unfortunately. Might get me one of those. I was gonna go buddhist but cant eat meat. Muslim has too many rules. Christian but read the bible and that god guy scares the shit out of me. You would have to be really narrow minded to be mormon but I do like there stance on marrage. In the end the only one I could see myself doing is Jedi. I already have a toy lightsaber and im pretty sure that i made a pencil role with my mind the other day.

Another unpleasant side effect of going full Muslim is there's a chance you could one day be "volunteered" to blow up some infidels along with your poor sorry arse. I remember an episode in Family Guy where Osama and his fellow nutters were ripping one of their volunteers who called in sick for the day he was supposed meet his 40 virgins in paradise. Quality stuff, Family Guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcanum26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

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.

---

The only way for Manny to redeem himself is to sleep with Buboy in a future 24/7.

---

Hahahaa quality

On a serious note - I'm with you on this one. Anyone who preaches their views to me manufactured by an old, badly translated, man made book, I don't have a lot of time for. If you choose a religion and it "saves" you and all that jazz, wonderful! I'm happy and respect that. Just don't push it on me when my views are formed by something else.

The ignorance is still amazing though, even in this day and age - like I always know what's coming when I'm asked where my parents are from. My reply is Turkish Cypriot and immediately it's "Ok, so you're Muslim". No fuckwit - religion isn't something you're born into but something you choose to believe..I choose not to. Besides I always like seeing their faces when I say "Yeah, I'm Muslim but I eat pork, get paraletic drunk and eat more food than normal during the fasting period

In relation to Pacquiao - I think it's at least as bad as what Floyd said. I think it should probably be interpreted as worse because Pac is showing an intolerance. Floyd was being a numpty playing the race card when there were a whole bunch of other reasons for "Linsanity"

My personal opinion - neither guy offended me. People can believe what they want but already I think Pacquiao is being effected. He's had an interview cancelled at The Grove where the CEO has said he's not welcome there anymore.

Do we really care what a boxer thinks about this? Seriously? Lets talk about boxing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 15rounder

Do we really care what a boxer thinks about this? Seriously? Lets talk about boxing here.

---

As a former forum gay, I feel I need to defend these issues. It should be Bilbo's job as the reigning gay, but he ran away and seeing as he would likely defend Pacquiao, I should put forth my 2012 campaign in uncompromising terms.

He has the right to his own opinion and that's it.

I know he is a catholic and would be considered quite a religious person, what I can not understand is other people of the same religion or similar ones who consider the Bible to be the word of god and it says something like 'Man shall not lie with Man' yet they agree with same sex marriage its completely contradictory.

I believe anyone that takes a man written book as the word of God to be fundamentally opposed to the notion of contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 15rounder

Do we really care what a boxer thinks about this? Seriously? Lets talk about boxing here.

---

It's boxing/boxer related

A song for Manny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6cL8KrIx18&ob=av3n

I don't even understand why people has to be married legally if not for religion. The issue here is religion. It's on the Bible, or whatever book they had. Why would they agree to a couple of living homosexuals re-write a millennium of belief or atleast bend the rules just to make them happy? If you are gay, go ahead that shouldn't be a problem nowadays. But what the heck, you can't be mad at someone who choose to believe he's right because his religion say so. Someone here nailed it, like religion, homosexuality is an option. Why not start a gay religion with all the beliefs you have and go marry each other or anything you like and hope that after a century or so half of the world belongs to that religion. I'm sure there will be politicians on that 'gay religion' can pass a law that allows you to marry your gay bride or gay broom.

Fucking simple. Majority of the people in the world is either Christian or Muslim or Buddhist. And these politicians who made the law (which is a document too - yeah a Book that everyone follows but is changeable unlike the bible!), belongs to those religion where gay marriage is not allowed. It's just not about changing a law, it's about changing the 'book' which is impossible. The long term solution, start forming that gay religion and hope the millions of gay around the world joins it and have a bunch go run for a Senate position or become a President. When the religion is gay, and politicians are gay, even boxers are gay, almost everyone is born gay due to religion..it won't be that hard to make gay marriage legal.

Sometimes, tolerance is just bad. Like a chronic disease it goes worse. When the public started accepting gays, they demanded to be married. Whereas in places where it is still considered taboo, it is not even issue. Right now fucking and 'falling in love' with your relatives is taboo. But if some influential personality dares to change the world and we start to think it's cool and we start tolerating it, you bet them practitioners will ask for more like - I want to marry my grandfather! And when you disagree with them because your religion says it's wrong they will crucify you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

:rolleyes:. 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.

---

Agree with you 100%.

You have a good point there, and that would be my issue with this all as well if I cared enough to take it seriously. Taking a stance on gay marriage is not as cut and dry as stating whether one endorses religious beliefs to begin with, it must be taken into account that marriage is historically a religious institution. Once you exhibit a bit of tolerance towards peoples beliefs just as you should their sexuality, it's not so black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

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.

---

It isn't like Manny is out preaching that gay marriage is wrong. He was asked a question and responded to the question based on his views. He has his beliefs and the belief that he expressed here is in agreement with his religion.

Was he asked his views on this or did he just come out and say it? If someone asked him then I don't see the problem with voicing his opinion. Gandalf said gays have right to be angry that pacquiao thinks that way. No they don't. They have zero rights when it comes to how a person thinks, unless being part of the thought police is now everyones natural right.
I disagree with what pacquiao said - does he now have a right to be angry with me? Its ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 15rounder

Do we really care what a boxer thinks about this? Seriously? Lets talk about boxing here.

---

As a former forum gay, I feel I need to defend these issues. It should be Bilbo's job as the reigning gay, but he ran away and seeing as he would likely defend Pacquiao, I should put forth my 2012 campaign in uncompromising terms.

---

I kinda understrand how u feel mr Gandalf. Even though I am not gay I am and for most of my life been a fat dude. But I find myself going the opposite direction when it comes to friends. The last thing I would want is my friends tiptoeing around me trying to avoid words that would offend me. I love the banter we have between each other. Some are gay, black, fat etc and we poke fun at one another even though we dont find anything wrong with one another its just steriotype jokes.
The problem with what Pac done is he came out and opposed it seriosly in puplic. When you are famous you have a certain influence on people and you can end up pushing your views on them just because they idolise you so much.
If someone I didnt know came out and said in public they dissagreed with fat people and said they were discusting then I would probably take offence. But not that much. Hearing it all my life it kinda dont bother me any more. But I dont think other people who do not want to put up with it should have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leighton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 15rounder

Do we really care what a boxer thinks about this? Seriously? Lets talk about boxing here.

---

As a former forum gay, I feel I need to defend these issues. It should be Bilbo's job as the reigning gay, but he ran away and seeing as he would likely defend Pacquiao, I should put forth my 2012 campaign in uncompromising terms.

---

I kinda understrand how u feel mr Gandalf. Even though I am not gay I am and for most of my life been a fat dude. But I find myself going the opposite direction when it comes to friends. The last thing I would want is my friends tiptoeing around me trying to avoid words that would offend me. I love the banter we have between each other. Some are gay, black, fat etc and we poke fun at one another even though we dont find anything wrong with one another its just steriotype jokes.
The problem with what Pac done is he came out and opposed it seriosly in puplic. When you are famous you have a certain influence on people and you can end up pushing your views on them just because they idolise you so much.
If someone I didnt know came out and said in public they dissagreed with fat people and said they were discusting then I would probably take offence. But not that much. Hearing it all my life it kinda dont bother me any more. But I dont think other people who do not want to put up with it should have to.

---

I don't agree with your statement that he came out and opposed it seriously in public. He was asked a question and Pacquiao being the bumbling religious zealot that he is, answered it honestly and straight to the point. He was against it because it's not in line with his religion. That's it. He never went on a rant about how disgusting gays are nor tried to influence others and sway them to his own views. If he is the homophobic, hate mongering person that the gay community and their supporters seem to be implying, then they should rightfully castigate Manny. However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that would support this case other than Pac voicing his disapproval of other people's beliefs. All of us disapprove of many things be they social/political/religious issues. All of us. It's perfectly fine and normal. What's not fine is when you become a walking talking intolerant hate machine. Has Pac exhibited such a behavior? I rest my case.

For once im on pacs side and not mayweathers.
God made adam and eve..not adam and steve.
You cant compare homosexuality with culture or skin colour. Pac might not have directly attacked gays but i respect his views and agree with his stance.

Haha I guess one of my friends was right - he always said "never discuss 2 things if you dont want things to get heated..Politics and religion"

I guess I broke two of his rules together. While it's not heated, every single one of us has a strong stance.

I would just like to point out that I am not a homosexual and that the forum gay contest is just a bit of banter between men who like boxing. I was having a laugh in the previous post about forum gays.

All I really see is ignorance. 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'. So the automatic ignorant and arrogant notion that God is mans creator and created man in his own image and gave women tits and chopped off the willy. It has no credence nor foundation in scientific theory. It is a silly attitude towards life.

The issue of colour is also a perfectly valid one. Attitudes changes and can do so very quickly. Just 50 years ago to commit a homosexual act was a crime and now the issue of gay marriage is circling around the agenda. Social change is bigger than the Bible and so it should be. Society is a functioning evolving form whilst the Bible is a silly old book written by men who couldn't separate fact from fantasy.

It says a lot when so many still use it as their very own self help manual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_PRODIGY

Someone here nailed it, like religion, homosexuality is an option. Why not start a gay religion with all the beliefs you have and go marry each other or anything you like and hope that after a century or so half of the world belongs to that religion. I'm sure there will be politicians on that 'gay religion' can pass a law that allows you to marry your gay bride or gay broom.

Sometimes, tolerance is just bad. Like a chronic disease it goes worse. When the public started accepting gays, they demanded to be married. Whereas in places where it is still considered taboo, it is not even issue. Right now fucking and 'falling in love' with your relatives is taboo. But if some influential personality dares to change the world and we start to think it's cool and we start tolerating it, you bet them practitioners will ask for more like - I want to marry my grandfather! And when you disagree with them because your religion says it's wrong they will crucify you!

---

First off, the "gay broom" part had me laughing. I know it was an unintentional error on your part but it really made me chuckle. Hey, maybe someday some nutjob out there would start advocating getting married with inanimate objects, a broom being an obvious candidate. On a more serious note, spot on analogy with the marrying your own relatives part.

I can't subscribe to the current trendy vehemence towards religion demonstrated by some people nowadays, but it doesn't help when people come out with statements like 'adam and steve' and 'the bible says..blah blah'. I'm not opposed to the notion of God but you might as quote Mein Kampf for your morality, as the Bible is proven to have just about the same lack of credibility.
Personally I could care less about taboo. Its taboo in Saudi arabia for women to drive, so what? doesn't make it right, although not everyone might agree. Its also taboo for women to wear revealing clothes in Saudi, which people in the West laugh at until you consider that we arrest people for walking around naked, which demonstrates exactly the same mentality. I digress, but it is better to tolerate. Where gays are not tolerated they are often subject to murder and beatings.Also, I don't have a problem if someone wants to marry their grandfather. Why?, because a book i read says its ok.

Pac should have said... F#@K those faggots I just wanna knock motherf@ckers out. Or the infamous (TYSON quote) I'm gonna fu*k you til you love me faggot. Civilization is becoming a bunch of soft whimpering , complaining pansies anymore. Just getting sick of double standards and hypocrisy.

God created Adam and Miles.

I gained a lot of respect for Pac when I first read his comments. Than he reminded me what a biitch he really is when said he was misquoted and didn't really say that