Comments Thread For: Orlando Cruz: Salido Had His Time, Now It's My Time

[Ivansmamma]

Yeah, you just equated being gay with murdering someone. You're a ****ing idiot.

It's the teaching of the church, they had it for some thousand years but if you tell them you disagree the pope will certainly take it up with god and fix it for you.

[Bajingo]

It's the teaching of the church, they had it for some thousand years but if you tell them you disagree the pope will certainly take it up with god and fix it for you.

http://news.sky.com/story/1121770/pope-francis-gay-people-should-not-be-judged

Keep up. I'm not even religious and I don't need anybody's approval of my view that there's nothing wrong with being gay. But even the Pope has a better view of things than you and the other ******s in this thread.

[Rockdrigokstro]

It's the equivalent of a murderer being proud of having murdered someone and promoting it as a lifestyle instead of trying to better himself...

How the f**k is the equivalent? You have a lot of problems, religion has been a cancer for the humanity, I can tell you that gay people is better than you.

[JmH Reborn]

It's the teaching of the church, they had it for some thousand years but if you tell them you disagree the pope will certainly take it up with god and fix it for you.

I suppose you support the doctrine of raping adolescent children too

Seeing as how that's the catholic way.

Either way, religion has proven to be humanity's most evil institution. War Cruz!

[swizz]

The doctrine of the catholic church which i acknowledge is that committing ****sexual acts is morally wrong and contrary to the nature of man.

so how come they still have priest that ******ed lil boys in churches then?

[Levity]

I don't see why promoting acceptance of ****sexuality should rile people up. Little evidence suggests that ****sexuality is inherently more destructive to one's life than bisexuality or heterosexuality are; if anything, much of the negative consequences of being ****sexual stem from the rejection and hate of others.

I don't think that rejection and hate, and thus the position that ****sexuality is wrong partially because others are bothered by it, can be defended any more trenchantly than racism and sexism can, whether from a religious or non-religious position. Certain portions of the Bible (just as one example) advocate slavery, mutilating women who intervene in conflicts involving their husbands, and so forth. No one accepts these practices as justifiable, meaning that people selectively extract religious support for positions. This implies that the religious text alone isn't enough to justify a position; other factors are being used by people to shape their principles that ostensibly just stem from religion.

I think those appealing to the instructions of the church are naive, and I don't believe in strict adherence to a philosophy or practice simply because an authority believes it's the right one to hold (a position should be judged based on its content and not on its source). That gives far too little weight to good reasoning and far too much weight to the flawed positions of those in power and those who lived thousands of years ago in a very different period.

****sexuality obviously has evolutionary utility, as it's existed for thousands of years. Whether it's natural or unnatural is irrelevant though, as the origin of something doesn't bear on whether it is right or wrong. For example, disease is natural and vaccinations aren't; illiteracy is natural and literacy isn't; having to walk miles to get to a location is natural and transporting more quickly by vehicle isn't.

The people who excoriate Cruz, abhor his lifestyle, and oppose him being open and proud about it are ironically the one's motivating the so-called promotion of ****sexuality. Many ****sexuals are open and proud about their sexuality because others devalue them and treat them as lesser-beings because of it. This makes sexual orientation the causal agent in the prejudice and discrimination they often encounter, so being open and proud of their sexuality is a way for them to combat that type of bigotry and to assert that they are not lesser being simply because they love members of the same sex. If ****sexuality weren't stigmatized and if ****sexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals, it's unlikely as many of them would feel the need to defensively stand up and express pride about who they're attracted to.

[ChampBox@PR]

I don't see why promoting acceptance of ****sexuality should rile people up. Little evidence suggests that ****sexuality is inherently more destructive to one's life than bisexuality or heterosexuality are; if anything, much of the negative consequences of being ****sexual stem from the rejection and hate of others.

I don't think that rejection and hate, and thus the position that ****sexuality is wrong partially because others are bothered by it, can be defended any more trenchantly than racism and sexism can, whether from a religious or non-religious position. Certain portions of the Bible (just as one example) advocate slavery, mutilating women who intervene in conflicts involving their husbands, and so forth. No one accepts these practices as justifiable, meaning that people selectively extract religious support for positions. This implies that the religious text alone isn't enough to justify a position; other factors are being used by people to shape their principles that ostensibly just stem from religion.

I think those appealing to the instructions of the church are naive, and I don't believe in strict adherence to a philosophy or practice simply because an authority believes it's the right one to hold (a position should be judged based on its content and not on its source). That gives far too little weight to good reasoning and far too much weight to the flawed positions of those in power and those who lived thousands of years ago in a very different period.

****sexuality obviously has evolutionary utility, as it's existed for thousands of years. Whether it's natural or unnatural is irrelevant though, as the origin of something doesn't bear on whether it is right or wrong. For example, disease is natural and vaccinations aren't; illiteracy is natural and literacy isn't; having to walk miles to get to a location is natural and transporting more quickly by vehicle isn't.

The people who excoriate Cruz, abhor his lifestyle, and oppose him being open and proud about it are ironically the one's motivating the so-called promotion of ****sexuality. Many ****sexuals are open and proud about their sexuality because others devalue them and treat them as lesser-beings because of it. This makes sexual orientation the causal agent in the prejudice and discrimination they often encounter, so being open and proud of their sexuality is a way for them to combat that type of bigotry and to assert that they are not lesser being simply because they love members of the same sex. If ****sexuality weren't stigmatized and if ****sexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals, it's unlikely as many of them would feel the need to defensively stand up and express pride about who they're attracted to.

Brother dont waste your time, with this bunch of ignorant fucks!!

[BoxingKnowItAll]

Ya, how disgusting and unreasonable for Cruz to say nothing about his sexuality in the article and for the article to simply state that he 'wants to become the first openly gay boxer to capture a world title.'

Even if he overstates his sexuality, I hardly see how it's disgusting rather than simply annoying.

Would you guys have an issue with the press repeatedly mentioning that someone hoped to become the first black world champion when that issue was relevant? What is a legitimate basis for being perturbed in this case but not that case?

You cannot compare race, which one has no control over to a sexual perversion, which one DOES have control over... but let me guess, I'm a closed mined bigot who judges people right? SMH.

[Spray_resistant]

You cannot compare race, which one has no control over to a sexual perversion, which one DOES have control over... but let me guess, I'm a closed mined bigot who judges people right? SMH.

Yes you are but that said Cruz will probably be stopped he just isn't that good or world championship caliber, he was stopped by Locke FFS.

[Levity]

You cannot compare race, which one has no control over to a sexual perversion, which one DOES have control over... but let me guess, I'm a closed mined bigot who judges people right? SMH.

Nothing conclusively shows that sexual orientation is a choice, and even if it were why would choosing to be ****sexual be wrong or perverted? What do you find abhorrent about being attracted to members of the same-sex??

I never claimed that you're a closed-minded bigot, but that label would be appropriate if you're ****phobic.