Pacquiao and "Homo-Phobia"

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
17,469
16,407
2,415
Pittsburgh
Anyone paying attention is by now aware that boxer Manny Pacquiao has got many people's shorts in a bunch by stating publicly the following:

"It's common sense. Do you see animals mating with the same sex? Animals are better because they can distinguish male from female. If men mate with men and women mate with women, they are worse than animals."

As a result, he has lost an endorsement contract with Nike, and is being excoriated by the breathless umbrage-takers of sport and the media. When asked to retract his statement he points out that it is biblically correct, and declines to retract it.

He is said to be a "Homo-Phobe."

NIke, you might recall, chose to stick with the golfer, "Tiger" Woods after it was made very public that he was a serial adulterer.

Consider:

What Pacquiao said is quite consistent with the teachings of the Christian Bible. While many "Christians" treat the Bible like a Cafeteria, picking and choosing what they like and rejecting what they don't like, the Biblical position on homosexual sodomy is not seriously in dispute.

Indeed, every serious Christian sect in the U.S. teaches that homosexual sodomy is sinful (The Episcopal Church, USA is no longer "Christian" in any meaningful sense).

Up until the very recent past, homosexual sodomy was a criminal act in essentially every State in the Union, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Marshall Islands. It was only by virtue of a renegade Supreme Court finding a fictitious "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution, that its criminality ended. Few of those laws have actually been repealed by the representatives of the people in the state legislatures, presumably because those elected persons consider that the people don't WANT them formally repealed.

So Nike and the rest of the sports world condemn this boxer for expressing an opinion about the teachings of the Bible that is not even in dispute, while it still treats Woods as a "sports hero," whatever that is.

Is this lunacy, or what?
 
Nike is not a reliable source when you want to discuss right and wrong.

Nevertheless on this issue they are 100% correct. This chap has crossed the line and should be shunned by decent people.

His comments are from the dark ages.
 
Why people care about what some athlete/politician across the globe thinks is beyond me?
 
Is this lunacy, or what?


To be so fascinated by "homosexual sodomy" as to devote this many words to the subject?


Probably.


I might suggest, instead, to turn all that mouth-foaming indignation to issues involving people actually harming one another. Goodness only knows, there are certainly plenty of opportunities in that regard.
 
Anyone paying attention is by now aware that boxer Manny Pacquiao has got many people's shorts in a bunch by stating publicly the following:

"It's common sense. Do you see animals mating with the same sex? Animals are better because they can distinguish male from female. If men mate with men and women mate with women, they are worse than animals."

As a result, he has lost an endorsement contract with Nike, and is being excoriated by the breathless umbrage-takers of sport and the media. When asked to retract his statement he points out that it is biblically correct, and declines to retract it.

He is said to be a "Homo-Phobe."

NIke, you might recall, chose to stick with the golfer, "Tiger" Woods after it was made very public that he was a serial adulterer.

Consider:

What Pacquiao said is quite consistent with the teachings of the Christian Bible. While many "Christians" treat the Bible like a Cafeteria, picking and choosing what they like and rejecting what they don't like, the Biblical position on homosexual sodomy is not seriously in dispute.

Indeed, every serious Christian sect in the U.S. teaches that homosexual sodomy is sinful (The Episcopal Church, USA is no longer "Christian" in any meaningful sense).

Up until the very recent past, homosexual sodomy was a criminal act in essentially every State in the Union, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Marshall Islands. It was only by virtue of a renegade Supreme Court finding a fictitious "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution, that its criminality ended. Few of those laws have actually been repealed by the representatives of the people in the state legislatures, presumably because those elected persons consider that the people don't WANT them formally repealed.

So Nike and the rest of the sports world condemn this boxer for expressing an opinion about the teachings of the Bible that is not even in dispute, while it still treats Woods as a "sports hero," whatever that is.

Is this lunacy, or what?

He certainly has the right to express his opinion. It may cost him his occupation but still he has the right. I once knew a guy who went to television repair school and opened a repair shop. He was doing really good in business because he had been a star basketball player in high school and everyone knew him. He got a particular brand of religion and took the tv sets out of his home and closed his business. He finally ended up opening up a little curb market selling vegetables and fruit.
 
Nike is not a reliable source when you want to discuss right and wrong.

Nevertheless on this issue they are 100% correct. This chap has crossed the line and should be shunned by decent people.

His comments are from the dark ages.
It was put crudely but a good point. Even if it is politically incorrect, good for him. Sexuality is people's personal business but nature didn't create it. The dark ages are in your head now since your mind is clouded.

Nike sucks for shoes though, after my last ones I'll never buy another pair.
 
Anyone paying attention is by now aware that boxer Manny Pacquiao has got many people's shorts in a bunch by stating publicly the following:

"It's common sense. Do you see animals mating with the same sex? Animals are better because they can distinguish male from female. If men mate with men and women mate with women, they are worse than animals."

As a result, he has lost an endorsement contract with Nike, and is being excoriated by the breathless umbrage-takers of sport and the media. When asked to retract his statement he points out that it is biblically correct, and declines to retract it.

He is said to be a "Homo-Phobe."

NIke, you might recall, chose to stick with the golfer, "Tiger" Woods after it was made very public that he was a serial adulterer.

Consider:

What Pacquiao said is quite consistent with the teachings of the Christian Bible. While many "Christians" treat the Bible like a Cafeteria, picking and choosing what they like and rejecting what they don't like, the Biblical position on homosexual sodomy is not seriously in dispute.

Indeed, every serious Christian sect in the U.S. teaches that homosexual sodomy is sinful (The Episcopal Church, USA is no longer "Christian" in any meaningful sense).

Up until the very recent past, homosexual sodomy was a criminal act in essentially every State in the Union, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Marshall Islands. It was only by virtue of a renegade Supreme Court finding a fictitious "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution, that its criminality ended. Few of those laws have actually been repealed by the representatives of the people in the state legislatures, presumably because those elected persons consider that the people don't WANT them formally repealed.

So Nike and the rest of the sports world condemn this boxer for expressing an opinion about the teachings of the Bible that is not even in dispute, while it still treats Woods as a "sports hero," whatever that is.

Is this lunacy, or what?
It may be consistent with the bible if you have some imagination, but its not consistent with reality. Animals exhibit gay behavior as well. When will people with low education learn to verify things before they speak?
 
So Nike and the rest of the sports world condemn this boxer for expressing an opinion about the teachings of the Bible that is not even in dispute, while it still treats Woods as a "sports hero," whatever that is.

Is this lunacy, or what?

No, it's called freedom, actually.

Pacquiao has a right to express his opinion. Nobody has stopped him. Likewise, Nike has a right to terminate his contract if they feel his public statements hurt their brand and image as a company.
 
Nike is not a reliable source when you want to discuss right and wrong.

Nevertheless on this issue they are 100% correct. This chap has crossed the line and should be shunned by decent people.

His comments are from the dark ages.
It was put crudely but a good point. Even if it is politically incorrect, good for him. Sexuality is people's personal business but nature didn't create it. The dark ages are in your head now since your mind is clouded.

Nike sucks for shoes though, after my last ones I'll never buy another pair.
Then no one should complain about it. He manned up and made his opinion known. Now he can deal with the consequences of his actions.
 
Good for him for not folding. You have a right to your beliefs, and I have a right to disagree with them, but I'm tired of these pussy celebrities walking back their statements out of fear of public opinion. I have more respect for the Phelps family. At least they don't hide how they feel.
 
Its funny, we live in a time when someone can say gay people are worse than animals and then go "Oh, sorry about saying that" and that is supposed to mean something HAHAHAHA.
 
Does morality exist?

Is it ONLY defined by "harm," or does it exist in the abstract?

Just because some people claim to be inclined to perverse sexual behavior without volition does not change the morality of the behavior. If I am inclined to take things that belong to others, I am obliged to suppress that inclination and refrain from the behavior. If I love my neighbor's wife more than anyone else in the world, and she feels the same way about me, and if we could consummate our love without either spouse (or anyone else ever finding out about it) it is STILL immoral behavior, is it not?

Manny made a correct statement about the morality of homosexual sodomy. Animals, not being sentient beings, cannot commit immoral acts, but humans can. Homosexuals are therefore worse than animals when it comes to the morality of their behavior.

Like it or not. It is what it is.

His opinion harms no one. Unlike Tiger Woods' infidelity. I will never buy another Nike product.
 
Does morality exist?

Is it ONLY defined by "harm," or does it exist in the abstract?

Just because some people claim to be inclined to perverse sexual behavior without volition does not change the morality of the behavior. If I am inclined to take things that belong to others, I am obliged to suppress that inclination and refrain from the behavior. If I love my neighbor's wife more than anyone else in the world, and she feels the same way about me, and if we could consummate our love without either spouse (or anyone else ever finding out about it) it is STILL immoral behavior, is it not?

Manny made a correct statement about the morality of homosexual sodomy. Animals, not being sentient beings, cannot commit immoral acts, but humans can. Homosexuals are therefore worse than animals when it comes to the morality of their behavior.

Like it or not. It is what it is.

His opinion harms no one. Unlike Tiger Woods' infidelity. I will never buy another Nike product.
What's immoral about being gay?
 

Forum List

Back
Top