Pacquiao: Same *** marriage "mas masahol sa hayop."

**Ry_Tower** · February 17th, 2016 12:52 PM

:popcorn:

https://youtu.be/Z6WPLiqViy8?t=1

**n_spinner06** · February 17th, 2016 01:04 PM

I dont see why this is even an issue.😀 the same people who are saying pacquiao has no right to force his beliefs are the same people who are obviously forcing their own beliefs. Labo lang. Opinions
lang naman bottomline nito di ba? Nagiging issue ng propriety
na e. Pacquiao offends the lgbt community and everybody reacts pero si pacquaio cannot voice out if he is offended by what he believes is wrong? Malas lang ni pacquiao it is he who 'needs' the lgbt votes, not the other way around. Or does he?

**Syuryuken** · February 17th, 2016 01:06 PM

Kayo naman nagpakatotoo lang naman si pacman sa sagot niya at saka ayaw nyo nun siguradong hindi na yan mananalo sa eleksiyon.

**niky** · February 17th, 2016 01:15 PM

Some people cannot separate the tecnhical term "animal" from the insult "animal".

Same with "monkey" or "ape".

Perhaps the easiest and least offensive way to put it is: "We are mammals."

Loaded language is a problem, really, when science intersects politics. Take this:

Americans? knowledge of evolution isn?t that bad?if you ask them about elephants | Science | AAAS

If people are forced to admit that humans are related to animals or have evolved from animals, they can't.

If they are asked to acknowledge that animals themselves evolved from other animals, no problem.

-

Beyond that, people are comfortable to believe what they've been taught to believe, and only to apply the critical thinking they learn as adults to things which they don't agree with.

**Vodka** · February 17th, 2016 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by n_spinner06

I dont see why this is even an issue.😀 the same people who are saying pacquiao has no right to force his beliefs are the same people who are obviously forcing their own beliefs. Labo lang. Opinions
lang naman bottomline nito di ba? Nagiging issue ng propriety
na e. Pacquiao offends the lgbt community and everybody reacts pero si pacquaio cannot voice out if he is offended by what he believes is wrong? Malas lang ni pacquiao it is he who 'needs' the lgbt votes, not the other way around. Or does he?

lemme explain it to you

people are entitled to their own stupid beliefs. i have no problem w/ that as long as they keep it to themselves, locked away from the rest of us sane people.

the issue here is when someone running for PUBLIC OFFICE has these stupid beliefs and starts influencing LEGLISLATURE that affects all us sane people. get it?

and us sane people aren't forcing anything. we're just presenting the facts that are already WELL-ESTABLISHED, backed by EVIDENCE.

**machine.pistol** · February 17th, 2016 02:28 PM

At least now we know that if a proposal to allow same *** marriage is deliberated in the Senate and Pacquiao gets to sit there, he'd probably one of those who would vote it down. That's one good way for voters to weigh their decision whether to elect a candidate or not.

**jefbuan** · February 17th, 2016 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by machine.pistol

At least now we know that if a proposal to allow same *** marriage is deliberated in the Senate and Pacquiao gets to sit there, he'd probably one of those who would vote it down. That's one good way for voters to weigh their decision whether to elect a candidate or not.

If SSM finally approved,,I think there will be economic benefits..First DOH,, mababasawan ang pagbibigay ng condoms at pills etc. dahil di na kailangan ng mga SSM couples.Second,since di magkakaanak ang mga SSM couples,they will just adopt street children roaming around metro manila..at masosolve ang overpopulation sa Pinas..my two cents

**Monseratto** · February 17th, 2016 02:47 PM

Funny how "conservative" senator who tried to stop the family planning law disagreed with Packyou's use of "animal"...

Reelectionist Senator Vicente "Tito" Sotto III said he "completely disagrees" with the famous boxer.

"I think he is misguided. I cannot agree at all. Completely disagree," he said.

**ClaNker** · February 17th, 2016 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by machine.pistol

At least now we know that if a proposal to allow same *** marriage is deliberated in the Senate and Pacquiao gets to sit there, he'd probably one of those who would vote it down. That's one good way for voters to weigh their decision whether to elect a candidate or not.

Really? Seriously? Hindi na ba sapat na di botohin si Pacquiao dahil hindi sya qualified in the first place, at napa libotan sya ng mga trapo.

Law allowing SSM in the Philippines? Don't hold your breath.