Jump to content

Pacquiao, "gay men should be put to death"


Recommended Posts

There are a lot of people on Twitter, refuting that Manny make that comment

 

When asked how he felt about gay marriage he said he sided with Leviticus on that issue, correct? That's bad enough. Even if he feels that way, MP has to be smart enough to give a PC answer. Plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There's about 2,000 years of history that disagrees. Religious literalism, in any form, has been the banner for tyrants and monsters since time immemorial.

As I said previously, it is just as unfair as the idiots who take bits and pieces of the Quoran and use it to rip Muslims. Some Christians are jerks, some aren't- the religion isn't the reason why. Same for any other religion or political belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said previously, it is just as unfair as the idiots who take bits and pieces of the Quoran and use it to rip Muslims. Some Christians are jerks, some aren't- the religion isn't the reason why. Same for any other religion or political belief.

Religion isn't the reason, it's the excuse and the balm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians were great when they were around, then they got snatched away in the rapture just like Harold Camping said they would, of course there were so few actual disciples of Jesus no one noticed their disappearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians were great when they were around, then they got snatched away in the rapture just like Harold Camping said they would, of course there were so few actual disciples of Jesus no one noticed their disappearance.

I thought Rapture was from Blondie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically speaking, the Christian belief of peace and love towards your fellow man only applies to white, heterosexual men. Everyone else can piss off.

 

What does the nonsensical over-generalizing statement above has to do with your (supposed) clarification below?

 

 

There's about 2,000 years of history that disagrees. Religious literalism, in any form, has been the banner for tyrants and monsters since time immemorial.

 

 

What, throughout history the only religious tyrants have been white ? ?

 

No one denies atheists their rights for free speech here, but anti- religious bigotry is just as bad as religious bigotry.

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does the nonsensical over-generalizing statement above has to do with your (supposed) clarification below?

 

 

 

 

 

What, throughout history the only religious tyrants have been white ? ?

 

No one denies atheists their rights for free speech here, but anti- religious bigotry is just as bad as religious bigotry.

 

.

I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't have the reading comprehension to understand my post ...

Edited by tgreg99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When asked how he felt about gay marriage he said he sided with Leviticus on that issue, correct? That's bad enough. Even if he feels that way, MP has to be smart enough to give a PC answer. Plain and simple.

Or instead of being a capitulating little kitty boy he can say what the !@#$ he thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or instead of being a capitulating little kitty boy he can say what the !@#$ he thinks.

That's the problem with religious literalism. By definition, if you're a religious literalist, you're not thinking and certainly not thinking for yourself.

 

Because thinking for yourself is hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or instead of being a capitulating little kitty boy he can say what the !@#$ he thinks.

 

He can and he did, but he has to be ready to face the repercussions. He can loose out on advertising dollars and lose fans. Is that worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem with religious literalism. By definition, if you're a religious literalist, you're not thinking and certainly not thinking for yourself.

 

Because thinking for yourself is hard.

All I know of this "controversy" I got from this thread, but if all he said is "it's against God's law" there's no reason to assume he's a religious literalist or that he wants butt-love to be a capital offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know of this "controversy" I got from this thread, but if all he said is "it's against God's law" there's no reason to assume he's a religious literalist or that he wants butt-love to be a capital offense.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Manny is a religious literalist (by his own admission). Even if he wasn't, using religious texts as an excuse to hate anyone is not only ignorant, it's lazy and the breeding ground for violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He can and he did, but he has to be ready to face the repercussions. He can loose out on advertising dollars and lose fans. Is that worth it?

It depends on how strongly he believes in it. Sometimes its worth sacrificing a few perks to speak one's true mind. If more people grew a !@#$ing sack and rolled their eyes at the petty whining and begging for grievances that any and every group in this country that can claim some form of marginalization jumps on head first, we'd have a lot stronger society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...