Quantcast

Pacquiao faces new foes: Gays, lesbians

By |

Manny Pacquiao

Who knew that Manny Pacquiao’s toughest opponent wasn’t Floyd Mayweather Jr. or Timothy Bradley, but the entire lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) community?

As far as gay-rights advocates are concerned, it’s a knockout.

The consensus on the Net is that the Filipino boxing champion has fallen from grace because of his rant against gay marriage. It has also ignited an online petition for Nike to drop Pacquiao as endorser. An Internet report claimed Pacquiao is now barred from The Grove, a shopping mall in Los Angeles, where the TV show “Extra” is taped, because of his “bigotry.”

In a recent interview in the US newspaper National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao likened gay marriage to “Sodom and Gomorrah” and quoted a biblical passage that said “gays should be put to death.”

Pacquiao denied saying that in a statement read on the network news in Manila last night. He also said he did not know the text in Leviticus that prescribes death for homosexuality.

But earlier in the day, his website quoted him as standing by what he said.

Gay activists have weighed in and found Pacquiao wanting.

Anna Leah Sarabia, anthropologist and gender and development specialist, told the Inquirer: “He has lost many fans, unfortunately, and gained many critics. He is trying to make up for lack of knowledge on social issues by being self-righteous and quoting the Bible out of context, and parroting the brainless statements of homophobic and misogynist priests and politicians.”

Danton Remoto, chair of the Ladlad LGBT political party, also told the Inquirer: “Like Miriam Quiambao, Pacquiao speaks with the zeal of the newly converted about things he knows nothing about. His reading of Christian teachings is narrow-minded, bigoted and, I am sorry to say, ignorant.”

(Quiambao, a former beauty queen, also got in trouble after posting on Twitter that homosexuality is a “lie from the devil.” She later apologized.)

After expressing his sentiments against same-sex marriage in the Examiner, Pacquiao has been deluged with criticisms in the American media and on social networking sites frequented by his countrymen.

Not a few Filipino fans have pointed out: From national hero, he has become a national heel.

It’s an “embarrassment,” said a netizen on Facebook. “Not our proudest moment,” said another.

Another netizen wrote: “I think philandering husbands who flaunt their mistresses and then spout words from the Bible are the ones who deserve to be put to death.”

Another was more straightforward: “Manny needs to worry about his own marriage first before he meddles into everyone else’s.”

It’s rumored that Pacquiao’s marriage to Jinkee Pacquiao is constantly tested by persistent rumors of his womanizing.

Online petition

The Courage Campaign website described Pacquiao as “homophobic” and launched an online petition for Nike to drop him as endorser.

The online campaign read: “Kids all over the world look up to Pacquiao as a role model. Nike earned a 100-percent rating in the 2012 Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index as a pro-LGBT company. Will they live up to it? Sign our petition and tell Nike: ‘Do not tarnish your brand. Stand with millions of LGBT and fair-minded people the world over. Drop Pacquiao now. Hatred surely does not equal Nike.’”

According to LA Weekly, Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of Courage Campaign, said: “American sponsors are going to have to look very carefully … whether they [will] continue to pour money into his apparently empty soul.”

Sarabia, who’s also the editor of the anthology “Tibok: Heartbeat of the Filipino Lesbian,” remarked: “There is a call from LGBT ranks to Nike and other companies to cancel his endorsement contracts because of what he said. There is basis for the call and it would be good to see how these companies will respond.”

Apart from Nike, Pacquiao has scored lucrative deals with international companies like Hewlett-Packard and Hennessy, too.

Banned at Grove

According to online reports, “Extra” host Mario Lopez announced on Twitter that Pacquiao was set to guest today (May 17) on his show, which is taped at The Grove.

The mall eventually issued this statement, published by LA Weekly on its website: “Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao, we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance.”

Pacquiao is in Los Angeles, training for his fight with Bradley to be held on June 9 in Las Vegas.

Village Voice parody

Village Voice ran a parody about 10 gays, both real and fictional, who can “beat up … pipsqueak Pacman.” The list includes American basketball bad boy Dennis Rodman and openly gay celebrities like British rugby player Ian Roberts, American football star Esera Tuaolo, singer Clay Aiken and comedian Rosie O’Donnell.

In the humor piece, Village Voice pointed out: “There’s no question that Pacquiao is a tough little guy. But he’s still a little guy (5-foot-6 and 144 pounds) and killing off gays one-by-one might be a slightly more difficult task than the feisty Filipino might think.”

The website of Advocate, a respected gay publication, carried the story with the headline: “Pacquiao compares marriage equality to Sodom and Gomorrah,” referring to the Old Testament cities that God destroyed because of their people’s immorality.

The Examiner interview mainly focused on Pacquiao’s reactions to US President Barack Obama’s recent support of gay marriage. Pacquiao told the Examiner: “America should be the model of morality for other countries to emulate and must have the responsibility to uphold the Scripture to the highest order of God’s command.”

Leviticus 20:13

Advocate reported that Pacquiao quoted the Bible, specifically Leviticus 20:13.

(Leviticus 20:13 reads: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their heads.”)

In another Village Voice story, Pacquiao was put to task for quoting Leviticus 20:13. “Pacquiao apparently missed church the day they explained the Golden Rule.”

Village Voice also noted that the “boxer and congressman … is a devout Roman Catholic who recently talked about giving up boxing to focus on his religion. Considering how badly he seems to interpret the ‘good book,’ maybe that’s not such a bad idea.”

Local celebs’ ire

Pacman, as the boxer is known in the biz, earned the ire of local celebrities as well.

Filmmaker Jose Javier Reyes told the Inquirer: “Instead of a reply, I have two questions: Does the Bible endorse the infliction of violence against your fellow man in the name of sportsmanship and to accrue millions so as to further gain a feeling of righteousness? What is the saying again about a little knowledge? Let me check Leviticus … OMG, it says it’s also a sin to have tattoos.”

Pacquiao is as famous for his tattoos as for his killer punch.

Screenwriter and actor Rody Vera told the Inquirer: “Pacquiao may be the world’s best boxer. The funny and fallacious thing is that he seems to believe this translates to being a great politician, great thinker and great person. He’s only a winner in the boxing ring. How awfully small and confining that space is. It aptly signifies his narrow-mindedness and blind fanaticism.”

Sarabia took note of Pacquiao’s statement: “God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they are in love with each other.”

Sarabia asked rhetorically: “I wonder if Pacman (Pacquiao) understands what he said, if he was quoted correctly. His statement seems to be an endorsement for divorce.”

Below the belt

Comedian Jon Santos, who made news for marrying an American man, was clearly not amused.

Santos told the Inquirer: “Life is too short to be spent unhappy. What happens in the bedroom is too private to be subjected to other people’s judgment. God is too good to prevent people who love each other from staying together.”

But stand-up comic Willie Nepomuceno has a hilarious take on the controversy: “I haven’t paid much attention to him since he became the spokesperson of God. Tsk, tsk. Perhaps he has taken too many blows to the head? But, my goodness, now he’s hitting below the belt.”


Follow Us



Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.



  • thusspakezarathustra

    Replying to IanAlera

    “Hindi. Hindi. Usapang moralidad, at pag-depensa sa kabutihan ng mamamayan.”

    Noong panahon na may racial segregation pa, sinasabing imoral ang interracial relationship. Sinasabing hindi makakabuti sa lipunan kapag naghalo ang dugo ng itim at ng puti. Noong panahon ng Nazi Germany, sinasabing ang mga Hudyo ang salot sa lipunan, na imoral sila, na kailangang idepensa ang lipunang Aleman mula sa mababababang uri ng tao (mga may kulay). Ang klima ng moralidad ay nagbabago. At sa kasaysayan ng civil rights, ang pagbabago ay nagmumula sa minoridad na lumalaban para sa pagkapantay-pantay.

    “Kung may civil rights ka sa gusto mo, may civil rights din ang taong gusto ang kabaligtaran ng gusto mo.”

    Ang karapatan ng isang tao ay tumitigil kapag tinatapakan na niya ang karapatan ng kapwa niya. Sa usaping same-sex marriage, hindi tatapakan ng LGBT ang karapatan mo dahil hindi ka naman pipiliting magpakasal sa isang bakla. Hindi pipilitin ang anumang simbahan na mag-perform ng same-sex marriage. Pero kung pipigilan mong magpakasal sa huwes ang dalawang baklang nag-iibigan, lumalabas ka na sa bakuran ng karapatan mo para pigilan sila. Bilang halimbawa: Ayoko ng rap music. Malaya akong magkaroon ng opinyon tungkol sa rap music at sabihing pangit ito. Pero wala akong karapatang pigilan ang isang rap musician na magperform ng musika niya para sa audience niya.

    “Tanong ko sa iyo, kung gusto ng maraming tao na maging-legal ang pag-sh-shabu, dapat ba itong gawing legal? Di ba civil rights din iyon na mamuhay ng gusto nila?”

    Ang methamphetamine hydrochloride ay scientifically proven na nakakasama sa katawan kaya ito iligal. Ang same-sex marriage hindi makakasama sa pangangatawan, at least not any more than traditional marriage. Pero sa analogy na ito, you’re defeating your own argument. Sabi mo ang gusto ng nakakarami ang dapat masunod. Ibig mo bang sabihin kung gusto nga ng nakakarami na gawing ligal ang shabu ay dapat gawing ligal nga ito? Kung gustuhin ng nakakarami na ‘wag na tayong magbayad ng buwis ay hindi na nga dapat tayo pwersahin ng gubyerno na magbayad? Dahil sa ngayon sigurado ako mahigit 80% ng populasyon ay hindi magbabayad ng buwis kung pwedeng hindi.

    “O kaya, maraming gustong gawing legal ang pag-nu-nude sa public places; payag ka bang gawing legal ito kung tumututol ang napakaraming tao?”

    Wala akong kilalang gustong gawing legal ang paghuhubad sa publiko pero malamang meron nga. Ang usaping nudity in public ay usaping dress code. Kung maging ligal nga ang public nudity, hindi naman ibig sabihin pwede akong pumunta ng opisina na hubo’t-hubad. May dress code sa opisina, sa mall, sa government buildings, etc. Kaya kung ako ang tatanungin mo, walang kaso sa akin. Makakita ako ng naglalakad sa lansangan na hubad, ang iisipin ko: may nakahubad. Sa mga bansang ligal ang public nudity, hindi naman isyu sa kanilang makakita ng nakahubad. It’s just a curiosity.

    • IanAlera

      Replying to thusspakezarathustra

      Ibig mo bag sabihin, na ang mga NAZI sa germany ay nagbago ng kanilang pananaw sa same sex marriage? — Hindi pareho ang mga advocacy ng apartheid, anti-semitism vs anti-same sex marriage.

      Totoong nagbabago ang klima ng moralidad; ngunit ito ay suma-sang-ayon sa kagustuhan ng nakakarami.
      —————

      Sabi mo — ” Ang same-sex marriage hindi makakasama sa pangangatawan…”

      Sagot ko — HIndi mo ba nabasa ang UN report na nagsasabi na ang transgenders ay may rate of HIV AIDS infection up to 49% — Ibig sabihin, ang mga same sex relationships ay maa-ari ring magdulot din ng increased risk of HIV AIDS infection. 

      HIndi mo ba nabalitaan ang study ng DOH a couple of years ago, tungkol sa new infections of HIV AIDS? A great percentage of new infections are from ‘homosexual sex’, with other sectors (dug addicts, ofw’s, hetero-sexual sex) getting very much less infections.

      Ok, ano naman ang relationship ng same sex marriage sa HIV-AIDS? (nakakita ka na ba ng same sex marriage na magkaiba ang sex ng mag-partner?  Tanong — Gusto mo bang ilagay sa additional risk ang publiko dahil sa ganitong klaseng relationships?  Gusto mo bang i-approve ng taong bayan ang ganitong klaseng dagdag-risk sa health ng publiko?
      ———–

      Eh yung rap music kung gusto mo gawin mo, pero kung nakakabulahaw ka na sa publiko — wala na ang karapatang sibil mo na bwisitin ang ibang tao.

      Walang self-defeating sa sinabi ko tungkol sa shabu; hindi mo lang inunawa.  Tungkol sa tax, ano relation niyan sa pinag-uusapan natin?
      ———-

      Kung sa isyu ng nudity in public places, ay ina-acknowledge mo ang ‘dress code’  — sa kasal pa kaya natin aalisin ang  ‘code’ na ang dapat lang ikasal ay yung ‘babae sa lalaki’?
      ———-

      Hindi dahil gusto ng iilan ng same-sex marriage ay dapat pilitin ang nakakarami na sumang-ayon sa iyo.

      • thusspakezarathustra

        Replying to IanAlera

        “Ibig mo bag sabihin, na ang mga NAZI sa germany ay nagbago ng kanilang pananaw sa same sex marriage? — Hindi pareho ang mga advocacy ng apartheid, anti-semitism vs anti-same sex marriage.”

        Ang mga Aleman ay nagbago ang pananaw sa race dahil sa mga nangyari noong World War II. At mali ka, nasa ilalim ng iisang bandera lang ang apertheid, anti-semitism, at anti-same-sex marriage: discrimination. 

        “Totoong nagbabago ang klima ng moralidad; ngunit ito ay suma-sang-ayon sa kagustuhan ng nakakarami.”

        Mali na naman. Bago nagsimula ang civil rights movement sa Estados Unidos, tanggap ng nakakarami na magkaiba ang itim at puti, na hindi dapat nagpapakasal ang magkaiba ang lahi, etc. Pero dahil sa mga aktibista tulad ni Martin Luther King, nagbago ang pananaw ng nakakarami. Hindi kusang nagbago ang klima ng moralidad, kinailangan ng mga taong tulad ni Martin Luther King para isilang an pagbabago.

        “Sabi mo — ” Ang same-sex marriage hindi makakasama sa pangangatawan…” Sagot ko — HIndi mo ba nabasa ang UN report na nagsasabi na ang transgenders ay may rate of HIV AIDS infection up to 49% — Ibig sabihin, ang mga same sex relationships ay maa-ari ring magdulot din ng increased risk of HIV AIDS infection. HIndi mo ba nabalitaan ang study ng DOH a couple of years ago, tungkol sa new infections of HIV AIDS? A great percentage of new infections are from ‘homosexual sex’, with other sectors (dug addicts, ofw’s, hetero-sexual sex) getting very much less infections.”

        Totoong higit na mas mataas ang incidence ng HIV infection among gay men kaya maraming nagsasabi na ang AIDS ay gay disease. Pero suriin natin. Una, ang HIV ay pwedeng kumapit sa sinumang tao, homosexual man o heterosexual. Kung mataas ang incidence ng HIV infection sa gay men, low-risk naman ang lesbians sa HIV infection. So hindi ganong kasimple ang usapin ng homosexuality and AIDS. Mas madaling maipasa ang HIV infection through anal sex (paumanhin sa topic) than vaginal intercourse dahil mas prone to tearing ang anal tissue. Ayon sa mga kaibigan kong bakla, hindi daw kasi sanay na gumamit ng condom ang marami sa kanila dahil wala namang panganib na makabuntis sila. Ibig sabihin, ang problema ng higher incidence of HIV infection among gay men is not a problem of homosexuality but a problem of ignorance. Aaminin ko na maski ako, kapag gumagamit ako ng condom, hindi naman AIDS at iba pang venereal diseases ang iniisip ko kundi contraception. Ayokong makabuntis. If we fight ignorance among homosexual men, bababa ang incidence ng AIDS sa kanilang lupon.

        “Ok, ano naman ang relationship ng same sex marriage sa HIV-AIDS? (nakakita ka na ba ng same sex marriage na magkaiba ang sex ng mag-partner?  Tanong — Gusto mo bang ilagay sa additional risk ang publiko dahil sa ganitong klaseng relationships?  Gusto mo bang i-approve ng taong bayan ang ganitong klaseng dagdag-risk sa health ng publiko?”

        Lahat tayo ay at risk of HIV, hindi lang mga bakla. Hindi nakakadagdag sa risk ang same-sex marriage. Baka makapagpababa pa nga ng risk. Kapag naging parte na ng kultura natin ang same-sex marriage, marahil ay magkakaroon ng pagbabago sa attitude ng mga bakla sa sexual partners nila. Ang marriage ang isang institusyon na sumosoporta sa pilosopiya ng monogamy. Dahil nakabaon na sa kultura natin ang ideya ng monogamous marriage, marami sa ating mga single ang nangangarap na isang araw ay matatagpuan natin ang isang partner na siyang magiging kasama natin hanggang tumanda tayo at wala na tayong hahanapin pang iba. Kapag naging institusyon din sa LGBT ang marriage, magbabago ang attitude ng marami sa kanila regarding partnership. The hope of a monogamous relationship recognized by law changes the sense of futility in homosexual relationships.

        “Eh yung rap music kung gusto mo gawin mo, pero kung nakakabulahaw ka na sa publiko — wala na ang karapatang sibil mo na bwisitin ang ibang tao.”

        Tama. Pwede kang mag-concert sa isang venue at makinig sa iyo ang mga gustong makinig. Pero hindi ka pwedeng mag-setup na lang ng concert sa lansangan. Hindi mo pwedeng ipilit sa ayaw makinig ang musika mo. Gano’n din naman ang isyu ng same-sex marriage. Ikakasal ka sa huwes pero hindi mo pwedeng pilitin ang simbahan na ikasal kayo. At wala namang gustong pilitin ang mga simbahan na pumayag na magkasal sa mga LGBT.

        “Walang self-defeating sa sinabi ko tungkol sa shabu; hindi mo lang inunawa.”

        Maniwala ka sana sa akin na pinipilit ko talagang unawain ang posisyon mo, kaibigan. Self-defeating ang analogy mo sa shabu kasi:

        1. Sabi mo kung ano ang gusto ng nakakarami ang siyang dapat masunod. Implying na dahil ayaw ng nakakaraming Pilipino sa same-sex marriage ay walang karapatan ang mga LGBT na magpakasal.
        2. Tinanong mo ako, kung gusto ng nakakarami na i-legalize ang shabu, papayag ba akong i-legalize ito? Siyempre hindi, dahil nakakasama ito sa kalusugan.
        3. Therefore, hindi lahat ng kagustuhan ng nakakarami ang dapat masunod. Kailangang suriin ang kagustugan ng majority kung tama ba ito.

        “Tungkol sa tax, ano relation niyan sa pinag-uusapan natin?”

        Dahil nga ang posisyon mo ay kung ano ang gusto ng nakakarami ay siyang dapat masunod. Kung tatanungin ang nakakaraming konserbatibo, hindi kayo sang-ayon sa same-sex marriage at hindi dapat bigyan ng ganitong karapatan ang mga LGBT. Again, I am challenging that position na kung ano ang gusto ng nakakarami ay ‘yon ang dapat masunod. Dahil kung tatanungin ang nakakaraming Pilipino, ayaw nilang pilitin silang magbayad ng buwis. Ibig sabihin ba dapat isabatas na hindi na sapilitan ang pagbabayad ng buwis?

        “Kung sa isyu ng nudity in public places, ay ina-acknowledge mo ang ‘dress code’  — sa kasal pa kaya natin aalisin ang  ‘code’ na ang dapat lang ikasal ay yung ‘babae sa lalaki’?”

        Hindi absolute ang dress code. Pwede kang magbihis ng shorts at sando sa beach. Kung papayagan ang public nudity, pwede ka ring maghubad sa beach. Pero sa opisina hindi. Gano’n din ang sinasabi mong code ng kasal. Sa nakakaraming simbahan hindi ka pwedeng magpakasal sa kapwa mo lalaki dahil labag sa paniniwala ng mga simbahan ito. Pero sa secular na mundong nasa labas ng simbahan, dapat may karapatan ang mga LGBT na magpakasal.

        “Hindi dahil gusto ng iilan ng same-sex marriage ay dapat pilitin ang nakakarami na sumang-ayon sa iyo.”

        Again, hindi ka naman pipiliting sumang-ayon. Hindi ka pipiliting magpakasal sa bakla. Hindi pipilitin ang simbahan mo na mag-perform ng same-sex wedding. Walang pilitan. Ang isyu lang ay kung ibibigay ba ng estado sa isang bakla ang karapatang magpakasal sa mahal niya.

      • IanAlera

        thusspakezarathustra,

        Pahaba ng pahaba ang dissertation mo. Maski speedreader ako, medyo mahirap basahin; kailangan mahabang panahon – Haba kasi.

        Pero huwag ka mag-alala, sasagutin ko punto por punto — pero mamaya, kasi may trabaho pa ako.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VNMBG22DUYWNGBIV5K5ELQTDPA Simon

    Gay marriage is a Western issue & the West is nearly bankrupt. Meaning, while the US is mired in debt & Europe is imploding, Asia is the motor of the world economy, & China will be richer than US in 5 years, twice as large in 10 years. The new Asian Century will set in new values & gay marriage will certainly become outmoded, one of the detritus of an eclipsed civilization. So instead of indulging in these peripheral issues like gay marriage, the Americans should mind their economy to avoid being eclipsed. What would happen when the Asian Century sets in is that the economic victor will call the values & gay marriage will become a joke. Waste of time after all

    HIndi na progresivo ang Amerika at Europa, bankrupt na sila, it’s
    because of their uncontrolled liberalism which destroyed them, lahat ng
    kababawan namayani.. Read the headlines. Filipinos are always behind the news. Baon na nga utang Amerika sa Tsina. In 5 years, there will be what
    we call Asia Century kasi mas mayaman na ang China sa America by that
    time. Even right now, the motor of the world economy is Asia. And what
    is gay marriage in Asia?  Wala. When Asian values prevail during the Asian Century, forget Western decadence like gay marriage

  • Renato_SUPOT_Pacifico

    FYI, gay-rights group may be loud and boisterous in the US but this is just an excercise in freedom of speech. To this day, the US federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions 

    ang siste kasi, meron dito who name drop the west as the index of progress and cite liberal thinking as the proponent of advancement then miraculously jump and regard gay rights as part of the progressive thinking that brought about the prosperous western society.

    mga ungas iba ang problema ng lipunan natin, hindi gay-rights ang dahilan kung bakit ang bayan nag-hihingalo! at hindi rin gay rights kung bakit naging progressibo ang mga bansa sa north america at western europe !

  • thusspakezarathustra

    Hindi po ba kung magkakaroon man ng same-sex marriage sa Pilipinas e hindi naman maaapektuhan ang mga taong straight na hindi sang-ayon dito? Hindi naman pipilitin ng gubyerno ang mga simbahan na mag-perform ng same-sex weddings. These will be civil weddings. So bakit ayaw natin pagbigyang ang mga LBGT na i-recognize ng gubyerno ang pagsasama nila? May mawawala ba sa atin.

    Civil discussion lang po, kung pupwede. Salamat.

    • IanAlera

      Replying to thusspakezarathustra

      Ang gumagawa ng batas ay representante ng mga botante.  kung ang mga botante ayaw ng same sex marriage, iboboto nila yung mga taong tingin nila pareho ang pag-iisip sa kanila.

      Yung mga lawmakers siyempre nakikinig din sa nakakaraming tao.  Ibig sabihin pag ayaw ng lawmakers sa same sex marriage, kasi ayaw ng nakakaraming tao.

      Respeto din sa paniniwala at kagustuhan ng majority.

      • thusspakezarathustra

        Kung titignan natin ang kasaysayan, ang pagbasag sa mga konserbatibong pananaw ng nakakarami ang siyang tumutulak sa civil rights. Kung ang nakakarami ang masusunod sa usaping civil rights, hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa pwedeng bumoto ang kababaihan at hanggang ngayon legal pa rin ang segregation ng mga puti at may kulay ang balat. Again, ano’ng malalabag na karapatan kapag pinayagang magpakasal sa mata ng batas (hindi ng simbahan) ang mga LGBT?

      • IanAlera

        Replying to thusspakezarathustra,

        tanong mo — “Again, ano’ng malalabag na karapatan kapag pinayagang magpakasal sa mata ng batas (hindi ng simbahan) ang mga LGBT?”

        Sagot ko — Yung karapatan ng nakakaraming mamamayan na nagsasabi na ‘Ayaw namin diyan. Ayaw naming mamuhay na kasama ang ganyang klaseng pamumuhay. Ayaw naming lumaki ang aming mga anak na makikita ang ganyang imoralidad. Makakasama iyan sa moralidad ng sociodad.’ — IN short ayaw namin at karapatan namin na ayawan iyan

      • thusspakezarathustra

        Hindi ba gano’n din ang sabi ng patriyarkal na lipunan bago pinayagang bumoto ang mga kababaihan? Hindi ba gano’n din ang sabi ng racist na lipunan bago inabolish ang racial segregation? Hindi ba usaping civil rights ang same-sex marriage?

      • IanAlera

        Replying to thusspakezarathustra

        Hindi. Hindi. Usapang moralidad, at pag-depensa sa kabutihan ng mamamayan. 

        Kung may civil rights ka sa gusto mo, may civil rights din ang taong gusto ang kabaligtaran ng gusto mo.

        Tanong ko sa iyo, kung gusto ng maraming tao na maging-legal ang pag-sh-shabu, dapat ba itong gawing legal? O kaya, maraming gustong gawing legal ang pag-nu-nude sa public places; payag ka bang gawing legal ito kung tumututol ang napakaraming tao? — Di ba civil rights din iyon na mamuhay ng gusto nila?

      • thusspakezarathustra

        Hindi na ako maka-reply so nagsimula na lang ako ng bagong comment thread.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DPY7A6TML3ZKWAJXMKV6WSGPLE car

    I admire Pacuiao more for standing up to what he believes in.    Isn’t that only consistent for what we knew him to be, courageous?   Filipino gays, like Jose Reyes etc. should not be surprised anymore  because manny is just being true to himself.  If he is otherwise, he would not be the pacman we so love.  I’m sure he gained more admirers than enemies for this.

    • Renato_SUPOT_Pacifico

      expect a louder minority gay-rights groups to have a more posturing stance and  ride on manny’s popularity on this matter. after all, the 3rd sex minority need it to get into the limelight and forward their issues.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X7ZXAWDLJZ4YDF2BTYTFXBNNEU ISCA

    This article should updated by the reporter/writer. Internet articles showed Pacquiao only said he is against same-sex marriage.

    • Diepor

      And follows the law of god , and what is the bible saying ?

  • canant

    Let’s all be fair: Manny Pacquiao vs. Dan Savage! a match to watch!

  • http://twitter.com/igzz2469 robert ignacio

    paquiao be a bamboo…who can withstand any storm what is important is a bamboo is still standing after a ferocious storm!!!

  • billy31

    dont worry manny, u gained more than you lost. u gained more respect for a correct belief.

  • Diepor

    Manny ,you are small and cute ,like a dog , but this time you didnt use your coconut.

    • sanjuan683

      hehehehehehe mga bakla nakakadiri kayo salot ng lipunan hindi naman kayo nananganak pero dumadami dahil nga sakit yan nakakahawa. hehehehehhe

    • IanAlera

      Replying to Diepor

      Now don’t tell us that you also have a thing for dogs? 

      • Diepor

        Gaylera ,you again . I think puppys are small and cute ,and Manny being very small remindes me of a puppy.Even do they do stupid things you still love them.Go back to school and get some education ,travel the world . It will cange the hateful way you look at the world.

      • IanAlera

        Replying to Diepor

        LOL.  There was this guy here in these forums that used to converse in a perverted way with his dog.  You sure you don’t have the same fetish? I sure hope not.



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Marketplace