Manny Pacquiao v Homosexuals

Pacquiao thoughts/opinions on the LGBT community/folks are antiquated...his offsprings will be more educated than daddy and their opinion will more reflex the times we are living in.

 

While I strongly disagree with your first statement as I know and have met many highly educated and intelligent people who are devout Christians, I do agree with your assertion that sexual preferences are developed by the social environment the person has been exposed since childhood. While many deny it, the vast majority of homosexual were either victim's of sexual abuse as children or were exposed to some sort of sexual situation that molded them. It could also be a castrating parent that always longed to have 'a girl' or a 'boy' and the child seeking acceptance from that parent starts behaving like the opposite sex. It could be so many factors. But no one is 'born this way'. If anything nature tells you that the male body is designated to copulate with a female body and viceversa. Same sex copulation is plain anti-natural.

 

I think it has more to do with the fact that people are tired of Pac, especially after his disappointing performance against Mayweather. Him turning down Terence Crawford didn't help either.

 

Only us hardcore fans care about Crawford....but everything else I agree. People also got tired of Floyd bullshit, but at least he fought someone dangerous every other BULLSHIT FIGHT...for every Guerrero and Ortiz..he fought a Cotto...or an Alvarez.

Arum is trying to resell us SHIT...after SHIT...after Pac going nite nite vs. Marquez...it was 3 straight BULLSHIT fights for Pacquiao...no RISK whatsoever...

 

So you are siding with this version of why this bout lacks so much interest?

 

Again...there was little interest in the first fight.....even less on the 2nd fight, considering Pacquiao won 10 rounds EASILY in the first fight....3rd fight is completely futile.

 

Are you trying to insinuate that what the fags are saying is a LIE? :warning:

 

'It isn't what nature designed us for!' you tell us via satellite while staring at a back lit screen in an air conditioned house on a seat you've probably spent at least 5 hours today on, and sipping a corn syrup coca cola

 

Not to mention that writing and complex oral languages are not natural to men, yet I don't see anyone object to the use of them.

 

Hmm dunno about that. Language is pretty much a universal/innate capacity. I guess writing is a technology but it's not far removed from where the lines blur....is a beaver dam a technology or just an expression of its nature? Dunno

 

I said complex oral language, not language per se. While savages did had some way to communicate with each other, the extent of what they could communicste was rather limited. And writing is definitvely not natural to men. As you probably know, there was a lot of civilizations which had no forms of writings. Hell, even a civilization as advanced as the inca didnt had a writing system, unless you count the quipu (which was more of a device to record numerical information than a writing system)

 

I wouldn't doubt this. Is expect it in fact when you consider mean ( average) intelligence. Most atheists and agnostics are that way because they are thinkers that don't conform etc. Most religious people are that way because they are coformists that don't think for themselves. However there are conformist dumb atheists and intelligent deep thinking theists.

The study is based on the average, which makes mathematical sense but it doesn't mean that religion is only for idiots and that atheism is for the intelligent.

 

What do inventions have to do with this topic? The brain can come up with brilliant ideas or can be constructed to accept deviations against the natural order of things in life.

 

Key is for keyhole. Plug is for socket. VCR is for TV. When you combine the couples magic happens. Now if a key wants to hang out with another key for the rest of its life and never be fulfilled by finding the keyhole that suits it's purpose, that's its prerogative. But two keys hanging out together ain't a marriage. The marriage, the consumation of the union is when the key pairs with a keyhole and fulfils its purpose.

Can I get an amen?

 

each culture around the world must have the same view on sexuality :will:

 

AMEN!!! ray:

 

There's shitloads of gay sex in the animal kingdom:dunno:

 

So what?

 

Animals will fuck anything. Put a naked girl on all fours in front of a male dog for long enough and it'll hump her.

 

are those animals "sinners"?::

 

::

 

Lol. You've got jokes!

Humans are held to a higher standard, religion or otherwise.

 

It's immoral because its not natural

yes it is natural!

ok but it doesn't matter if it's natural! the natural world is totally immoral!

::

 

Nice try.

In nature, Lions kill the offspring of their rivals. Not for food you understand, just to eliminate the competitions bloodline and just have their own. So that's " natural" if you will. Perhaps the English need to eliminate all the Scots and their descendants so that they can be on their way to being the only ones on that island. Perhaps your liberal kind willsee that as being morally fine since the lions do it.

Secondly, animals fuck anything. Different species even. Therefore are you suggesting that beastiality is moral?

Thirdly, many animals also fuck siblings. Should we do that too?

Are animals our standard?

Lastly, even if there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals, animals that reproduce sexually are more naturally wired to mate with members of the opposite sex. If that wasn't the natural thing to do there would be just one sex and not two and all animals would be asexual.

There's no point in pulling out exceptions in some cases and making them disprove the rule. If I say that white people have lighter skin than black people, what I say is true. If you try to disprove it by sharing isolated cases of dark white people and very pale black people that's just being silly. Men are bigger and stronger than women...that's natural in humans. That's he rule . Of course there are many examples of women being bigger than some men, but hat doesn't disprove the rule.

When we start getting down to these silly exception arguments you know people are willfully ignorant.

 

Faggots are animals. QED.

THANKS OBAMA!

 

Man, follow your own argument - either it being 'natural' or not is some commentary on its ethics or it isn't. Pick one. Or at least pick one side of the fence per post!

 

i can give many examples of things that are natural to humans, such as wanting to have sex, wanting to have relationships with others etc and I can also find if I wanted to many examples of people that don't want sex and don't like the company of others. I'm still right in saying that the exceptions are unnatural although they do occur in nature.

But besides all that it's silly to point to animal behaviour in any way to decide what is right for humans.

So yes, I am covering all bases and not focusing on just one side of the argument. I'm able to do that because I'm very wise and superintelligent but most importantly of all because..

I'm Batman!

 

::

I can't argue with that, I concede

 

right?::