I support Manny's stance ,Do you?

Have to respect a man going against the grain to uphold his beliefs.

Are you that big a ****wit. A MAMMAL IS AN ANIMAL YOU SPASTIC. Unless you want to claim Whales arent animals either. Seriously have you ever read a book? you might want to read a book, geez you sound really stupid. read a book smart guy. there are differences. Mammals are a sub division but you would know that if you would pick up a BOOK! whales are mammals lol :bryce:

humans are mammals dude.... geez no one reads books or went to school on this site? Are you that big a ****wit. A MAMMAL IS AN ANIMAL YOU SPASTIC. Unless you want to claim Whales arent animals either. Seriously have you ever read a book?

Wow, if you agree with his comment you are the one with a mental illness. 1. Humans are animals 2. alot of other species have homosexual relationships Seriously these religious nut cases need to read a book, a non-fiction book. Both his points are completely incorrect. Seriously how thick is manny? humans are mammals dude.... geez no one reads books or went to school on this site?

Yes I agree its wrong, but I DONT agree to comparing them to animals and being disrespectful.

I am agree 100% with Manny's stance against Homosexualtiy ,cmon homosexualtiy is just mental disorder, simply bull****. Homosexuality is abnormality,it is not a normal behavior. This is disgrace to humanity. Way to advertise that you're a small minded bigot.

The irony is this; some people hold opinions that others find abhorrent and are often subject to attempts to censor them. Freedom of speech protects both those who hold opinions and ironically those whose speech is a call for censorship. My freedom of speech allows me to say that you should not be allowed to voice your opinion however if I go beyond speech to force my intolerance and censorship on you then that's a problem. As of now, I am not aware of any attempt, either by Pacquiao or those currently protesting his comments to actually curtail anyone's freedom of speech but there's been plenty of people on both sides advocating censorship. Agreed! Well put bruh. Peace!

Agreed, freedom isn't always pretty, it rarely is, and comes in stages! I agree that both sides need to be allowed to speak the truth that they understand, without limitation Gimme a few examples of this thin line between criticism & curtailment. I don't think PAC interfered with one gay couple getting busy tonight. I want those in opposition to PAC to share their views from the deepest valley's to the highest mountains, all voices of opposition are welcomed every day, all the time. I don't agree with stripping or curtailing anyone's point of view, ever. Please explain in detail the irony of removing free speech to enhance open discussions??? Best Regards, Zaroku The irony is this; some people hold opinions that others find abhorrent and are often subject to attempts to censor them. Freedom of speech protects both those who hold opinions and ironically those whose speech is a call for censorship. My freedom of speech allows me to say that you should not be allowed to voice your opinion however if I go beyond speech to force my intolerance and censorship on you then that's a problem. As of now, I am not aware of any attempt, either by Pacquiao or those currently protesting his comments to actually curtail anyone's freedom of speech but there's been plenty of people on both sides advocating censorship.

Fair enough.. two things, though.. Firstly, freedom isn't always pretty. Pacquiao's comments and the resulting backlash to them is testament to that. Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights. If not you then many people in this thread have advocated that those opposed to Pacquiao stay silent and indeed many of those opposed to Pacquiao have done the same. Ironically, the only way to stay consistent is to allow both sides the right to advocate stripping others of their rights but point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of taking such a position which is what I've tried to do. Whether I've succeeded is another issue entirely. Agreed, freedom isn't always pretty, it rarely is, and comes in stages! I agree that both sides need to be allowed to speak the truth that they understand, without limitation Gimme a few examples of this thin line between criticism & curtailment. I don't think PAC interfered with one gay couple getting busy tonight. I want those in opposition to PAC to share their views from the deepest valley's to the highest mountains, all voices of opposition are welcomed every day, all the time. I don't agree with stripping or curtailing anyone's point of view, ever. Please explain in detail the irony of removing free speech to enhance open discussions??? Best Regards, Zaroku

It's funny to see you delusional lunatics talking as if you were rational beings religion is nothing more than a socially accepted form of insanity at the end of the day, you're no different from nutjobs who still believe in santa claus at an adult age, and you have the exact same amount of evidence to support your irrational beliefs as them sir isaac newton, insane? carry on lad....

Fair enough.. two things, though.. Firstly, freedom isn't always pretty. Pacquiao's comments and the resulting backlash to them is testament to that. Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights. If not you then many people in this thread have advocated that those opposed to Pacquiao stay silent and indeed many of those opposed to Pacquiao have done the same. Ironically, the only way to stay consistent is to allow both sides the right to advocate stripping others of their rights but point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of taking such a position which is what I've tried to do. Whether I've succeeded is another issue entirely. freedom is always pretty....how one uses freedom is the issue... "Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights." you have a valid point up there..... i guess we can add what follows with my earlier post: the sensibilities of man depends on how he slept last night, what he took for breakfast, who told him his handsome, who he ate lunch with, what's for dinner, who will foot the bills, who won the ball games, which horse won, and now.....who to sleep with tonight? oh my....very good exchanges though... cheers!

thanks, buddy....and read this...sir isaac newton on creation... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2 Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God. It's funny to see you delusional lunatics talking as if you were rational beings religion is nothing more than a socially accepted form of insanity at the end of the day, you're no different from nutjobs who still believe in santa claus at an adult age, and you have the exact same amount of evidence to support your irrational beliefs as them

I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here; One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. I agree with this...i stated in my posts pac did wrong in his "animal" snafu...lgbt has right to air grievances...but airing grievances should not be equated to full hate vengeance....more so pac apologized for it and such overkill a retaliation will not also reflect back well for the lgbt... Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. i never said that... By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. not necessarily...read again above... Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know. now consider this; equality, no doubt, is paradise on earth...it is a very noble idea....that man must pursue to realization...a very sweet aspiration...a dream..... but it is something beset by man having different beliefs, culture, ;religion, laws, way of life, national interests, etc etc etc... what rights one can enjoy in say, usa most likely you will not get everywhere.... the prevailing conditions on earth is making that dream an impossible dream... Fair enough.. two things, though.. Firstly, freedom isn't always pretty. Pacquiao's comments and the resulting backlash to them is testament to that. Secondly, it's a very thin line between criticising and attempting to curtail someone's rights. If not you then many people in this thread have advocated that those opposed to Pacquiao stay silent and indeed many of those opposed to Pacquiao have done the same. Ironically, the only way to stay consistent is to allow both sides the right to advocate stripping others of their rights but point out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of taking such a position which is what I've tried to do. Whether I've succeeded is another issue entirely.

I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here; One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know. I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here; One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. I agree with this...i stated in my posts pac did wrong in his "animal" snafu...lgbt has right to air grievances...but airing grievances should not be equated to full hate vengeance....more so pac apologized for it and such overkill a retaliation will not also reflect back well for the lgbt... Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. i never said that... By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. not necessarily...read again above... Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know. now consider this; equality, no doubt, is paradise on earth...it is a very noble idea....that man must pursue to realization...a very sweet aspiration...a dream..... but it is something beset by man having different beliefs, culture, ;religion, laws, way of life, national interests, etc etc etc... what rights one can enjoy in say, usa most likely you will not get everywhere.... the prevailing conditions on earth is making that dream an impossible dream...

"What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association." where from my posts do you get the above conclusions? I can only speculate on your views. As I said they're two options here; One, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree have a right to protest and disassociate with him which mean he loses his sponsorship deals and his sources of income. Or two, Pacquiao has the right to his views and those that disagree should keep quiet and keep giving him money. By criticising those opposed to Pacquiao's views you inadvertently lend support to option two. Of course, if there's a third option here where no one's freedom is infringed upon then let me know.

In my view no but then what's the alternative here? You either accept free speech or you don't. What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association. It's unfortunate for Pacquiao but the fact is he is not entitled to a living. Just like you should not be able to force me to give you a job or a business should not be able to force you to buy it's products, Nike and others should not be forced to give Pacquiao money nor should people be forced to pay to watch him fight. Obviously, you're free to disagree but understand that you're advocating elevating one man's right above the rights of others and as such arguing against the very idea of freedom. "What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association." where from my posts do you get the above conclusions?

The bible says that. show me the verse in the bible that says that...

in your view, then, knocking off one's teeth is more aggravating than taking out one by one a man's source of livelihood.... the hatred pac got himself into is like a train gone berserk.... pac has to answer for his mistake... but some people are stretching this issue near breaking point... for their own agenda.... In my view no but then what's the alternative here? You either accept free speech or you don't. What you're advocating here is allowing one man free speech and then stripping it from millions of others. Furthermore you're advocating forcing private institutions to associate with a man and in doing so harming they're business and reputation stripping them of their right to freedom of association. It's unfortunate for Pacquiao but the fact is he is not entitled to a living. Just like you should not be able to force me to give you a job or a business should not be able to force you to buy it's products, Nike and others should not be forced to give Pacquiao money nor should people be forced to pay to watch him fight. Obviously, you're free to disagree but understand that you're advocating elevating one man's right above the rights of others and as such arguing against the very idea of freedom.

show me where i said that.... The bible says that.

thanks, buddy....and read this...sir isaac newton on creation... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "pantokrator," or Universal Ruler....2 Scientific inquiry, which then existed as Natural Philosophy, could not exist apart from "the Maker," according to Newton. In fact, science was the perfect realm in which to discuss God. I agree completely. Darwin was a divinity student and not a scientist.