Skip to content

Manny Pacquiao lashes out at President Obama’s stance on gay marriage

May 14, 2012, 4:48 PM EDT

(FILES) This file photo taken on Novembe Getty Images

Manny Pacquiao would like you to know that he disagrees with President Obama’s recent personal endorsement of gay marriage. The Bible is against such shenanigans, says Pac Man, and one should always obey what’s written the Bible. Of course it’s been noted here that the Bible says a lot of things, not all of which are taken literally by most Christians, including Pacquiao. But give Pacquiao credit for one thing: he not only quotes Leviticus on the subject, he leaves in the parts that other anti-gay marriage zealots tend to leave out. Like the part about gay people being put to death. Yes, apparently Pacquiao is for that.

Pacquiao, in training for his fight with Timothy Bradley in June, made this statement on Friday. Digital Journal:

In his statement on Obama’s endorsement of same sex marriage, Pacquiao said, he calls on societies to fear God and not to promote sin. He quoted Leviticus 20:13: “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 own heads.”

“God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other,” Pacquiao quoted the Bible.

“It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old,” he said.

The way things are going now, I half expect Pacquiao to bust into a Samuel L. Jackson Pulp Fiction “And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee” speech before each press conference. His new religious austerity regimen is starting to sound a little strange. How he performs in the Bradly fight will be very interesting.

  1. texangirl - May 14, 2012 at 9:44 PM

    Pacquiao is correct.

    • allmyteamsareterrible - May 15, 2012 at 7:29 AM

      what a surprise that someone with the name “texangirl” would agree with the neanderthal stance on marriage.

      • texangirl - May 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

        This can be very confusing so I will try to make it as simple as possible.

        People say ‘well the Old Testament says this or that and it doesn’t make sense today’. True, they don’t make sense and the teachings of the New Testament removed the things in question. BUT the moral teachings were not removed.

        That’s why Jesus will forgive any sin (homosexuality, adultery, etc.) but He then says, “go and sin no more”.

  2. brymeister1 - May 14, 2012 at 11:31 PM

    How strange. He must’ve skipped over the part in which the Bible forbids adultery.

  3. kelsocarpenter - May 15, 2012 at 7:32 AM

    That’s funny. I don’t remember God saying anything about “legal marriage,” especially as it applies in modern society. You know, with equal rights, civil liberties, making a good life for yourself.

    • michiganhockey11 - May 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

      Your presuppositions dictate that modern society (moral laws, etc.) should have precendent over an almighty God, right?

      Would have been much better for Manny to use one of the couple New Testament passages on that instead of the OT. Becasue of what he referenced, you get every peter, paul and mary claiming the other levitican laws about mixed fabric clothing, the sabbath, kosher eating, et. al. without referencing that Christ came fo fulfill those laws and we are no longer bound to them (not saying people can do what they want and have no remorse, just that those laws prevent a true relationship with God).

      • rubbernilly - May 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

        Not to answer for kelsocarpenter, but to offer *an* answer to your points, piece by piece…

        Your presuppositions dictate that modern society (moral laws, etc.) should have precendent over an almighty God, right?

        First, they aren’t presuppositions, at least not in an epistemological sense. They are the reasoned conclusions that arise out of presuppositions. Second, as soon as an almighty God wishes to speak for her almighty self, I’ll listen. And then, in something of a rabbinical tradition, I will weigh what she says against my own reason (I cannot do otherwise, for in suspending my own capacity for rational thought I would be effectively living a lie, and I have yet to encounter a deity that appreciated such), and tell God that she is out of order unless she can document her American citizenship.

        If we’re in Arizona, she is REALLY going to be in trouble.

        Third, in lieu of God presenting herself, until you can definitively state what her desire is let’s not pretend we should be favoring one interpretation over another. As soon as you declare that you have the One Right and True © message, I will show you to the room where the rest of the One Right and True © salespersons are being made to wait while they try to convince us that their’s is the message we should be legislating.

        Fourth, in a republic founded on the notions of freedom and equality, and with a separation of church and state (if you don’t accept that interpretation of the Constitution, you can read it written in the Treaty of Tripoli), there is no room for theologically driven prejudices, or legislated inequalities, no matter how divinely inspired you — or any majority — think they are.

        In marriage, that which is sacred cannot be legislated; that which is secular cannot be limited.

        Would have been much better for Manny to use one of the couple New Testament passages on that instead of the OT.

        Why would that have been better? Each of those carry alternate interpretations with strongly reasoned apologetics. They are couched in discussions of other topics, making other points. They are no more help to support a homosexual prejudice than the OT verses.

        …the other levitican laws about mixed fabric clothing, the sabbath, kosher eating, et. al. without referencing that Christ came fo fulfill those laws and we are no longer bound to them
        Already, above, I’ve answered you from a secular worldview, demonstrating the case for where theology ranks with regard to law in the US. On this point, I’ll argue instead from within the Christian worldview.

        The doctrines regarding Jesus’ abrogation of the OT laws is a very Pauline-driven position, dependent on Paul as the inspired messenger. In actuality, he was at odds with Jesus’ closest followers (the Jerusalem church and his brother, James). There is significant reason to doubt that he was even a Pharisee, and certainly not one trained at the feet of Gamaliel, as he rarely can handle Pharisaic logic. His arguments and his writings are significantly more hellenistic, and his attempts at qal va homer arguments would get him laughed out of a Pharisee school. Out of his tradition arose the notion of the hated Pharisee, when in fact the Pharisees were the populist teachers among the Jews. They were far more sympathetic to popular uprisings and Jewish independence (you should read there: Jesus’ messianic movement) than were the Sadducees, the quisling political appointees of the Roman occupation.

        Taken together, it is little wonder that Paul’s message outlasted (outshouted?) Jesus’ own. In conflict with the Jerusalem church, Paul had to take his message abroad, to non-Jews. The Jerusalem church, being focused on Jesus’ movement as a messianic uprising, naturally confined themselves to Jews, and turned to the next heir (messiah being a title of royalty, the heir was Jesus’ brother, James).

        Some things Paul got right, but there are so many more things he got wrong… And, while I’m not a Jew myself, saying that Jesus abrogated the Law and showed a better way seems to me to be one of the most insidiously subtle anti-semitic things one could claim.

      • michiganhockey11 - May 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM

        Wow, someone learned how to copy & paste things from the internet today….

      • rubbernilly - May 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM

        Er, no. The topic just touches on part of something that I do IRL. The fact that I was answering you specifically should have told you I composed that on the fly. But feel free to assume otherwise if it allows you to ignore the points I made.

        Ignorance, they say, is bliss.

    • yournuts - May 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM

      So do it as domestic partners. Marriage is a bond between men and women.

  4. Bryce - May 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    You can’t have the spirit of the Lord in your life in it’s abundance if you are practicing adultery, homosexuality, or any type of sexual activity outside of marriage. If homosexuality were normal, why is it that it is just now coming to the forefront of societies issues? Why wasn’t this addressed and dealt with thousands of years ago? (I guess it was, if you believe the Bible it was condemned by prophets of old) I guess it is cause people were neanderthals and didn’t know any better. I think we are a society that is getting more and more degenerate by the day.

    • michiganhockey11 - May 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM

      I would add that if you are sinning (which we all are/do) but not remorseful, not asking for forgiveness and not trying to change/struggle

      • Bryce - May 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM


    • MT1776 - May 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM

      Bryce, doesn’t the argument “If homosexuality were normal, why is it that it is just now coming to the forefront of societies issues?” conflict with homosexuality being mentioned in the Old Testament? You should also read into some of the Ancient Greek and Roman thinking on the subject. If you honestly think Jesus wants to you look down on homosexuals and prevent them from getting the legal benefits of marriage, you are free to do so. Just keep in mind those statements say more about your god than it does about gay people. More importantly, implying that homosexuality is wrong because it’s new is makes no sense whatsoever.

      And while you’re reading about those ancient cultures, you might want to compare present day to the rape, murder, and slavery that were common place thousands, even a few hundred years ago. Then come back and talk some more about how society is getting more degenerate.

  5. unfortunatelyavikingsfan - May 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

    Have a lot of respect of Manny. Takes a good man to make a stand when the tide of popular opinion (which has been hijacked by perverts and degenerates) is running the other way. Good stuff.

    • sasquash20 - May 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM

      I have a lot of respect for Obama for standing up for the rights of the lesbian/gay Americans in this country. The tide of popular opinion is clearly against him. The christian extremist continue the vile over the top hate of human beings that are different then they are. I don’t see how lesbian/gay marriage effects anyone who isn’t lesbian/gay. These same sex couples are Americans and they should have the same rights as every American. Being American gives you the right to pursue happiness, who are you to say what makes someone happy? This is an issue that shouldn’t be an issue at all. Neither should women’s rights be an issue either. If you are against abortion then start adopting these babies that women don’t want or feel that they couldn’t raise properly. What is that you can’t do that? Then stop trying to tell everyone else how to live their life. There is more then enough unwanted children in the world today. I long for the day that silly non issues don’t cloud peoples views of politicians, thus allowing for real changes to real issues.

      • michiganhockey11 - May 15, 2012 at 2:25 PM

        “Being American gives you the right to pursue happiness, who are you to say what makes someone happy?”

        The reasoning you submit in your argument would give complete credence to bigamy/polygamy being legalized. You realize that right?

      • sasquash20 - May 15, 2012 at 2:58 PM

        I’m ok with it if all people involved are ok with this, and no is getting hurt. Who am I to judge anyone? Who are you to judge anyone? I wouldn’t do it myself but that doesn’t make it wrong for others to do it. I’m all for people doing what makes them happy as long as no one gets hurt, abused, raped, ect.

      • rubbernilly - May 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM

        Polyamory exists already. Plenty of people are in plural relationships and not hurting anybody.

        All that legalizing polygamy/polyandry will do is codify property rights, visitation, child custody, etc.

        Legalizing such practices doesn’t make it any more sacred than…

        …hey, it doesn’t make it any more sacred than legalizing gay marriage would.

        How ’bout that.

      • unfortunatelyavikingsfan - May 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM

        It’s the same reason we have laws againt child pornography, pedophilia, illegal distribution of narcotics, etc. etc. It’s immoral, plain and simple. At the end of the day people just want to be comfortable in their perversions. Do whatever you want and there are no consequences rules the day. It is in our nature to be happy. However, immoral conduct is contrary to our very nature – and it is impossible to find happiness in immorality.

    • redneckrick - May 20, 2012 at 11:22 AM


  6. bjg5091 - May 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

    Hey everybody that agrees with Pac Man, just remember if you are on Facebook or the internet in general really you are committing a sin. That is because are supporting horrible, horrible atheists. Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, etc etc. A lot of people that have brought you this technology are devil worshiping nonbelievers. So you might as well stop using the internet.

    For anybody to stupid to realize this, I am an atheist and was using satire earlier. Just getting a point across about how dangerous religion can be and that if you believe you will go to hell for the dumbest things in the world, you deserve to live your life in ignorant bliss because only those that are accepting of the life choices of others deserve to see the true beauty of this world.

    • skids003 - May 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM

      Yet Manny was very instrumental in getting Harry Reid re elected in Nevada.

    • girouxhasladyballs - May 16, 2012 at 6:34 AM

      apparently the internet = windows and facebook. good argument.

      • bjg5091 - May 16, 2012 at 3:16 PM

        Not saying it is. Just saying there is a good chance if you are on the internet, you are supporting an atheist.

  7. jimguida - May 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

    *sigh* Here we go again. Written by me, this is from, my website:

    There is something called “proof-texting,” wherein someone has a thought and then they search the Bible to find corroboration of that thought. It is bad preaching and it is bad theology. And it has been used with venom against certain types of God’s Children.

    I believe that the civil rights being fought for today are no different than the civil rights that were fought for with marches in Birmingham and Washington, DC and came to its nadir on a hotel balcony in Memphis.
    Many people, including friends of mine, believe homosexuality is a choice. I do not. But that notwithstanding, I believe in the liberties of consenting adults. That is the politics of our country and the ongoing evolution of the “American Experiment.” This issue, unfortunately, has become intertwined with religion, obliterating the line between “Church and State” – another important part of the “American Experiment.” I would like to argue against those who believe that homosexuality is anti-Biblical and a threat to Christianity.

    Those who tout Leviticus 22:18 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” – as their reason against homosexuality might want to read all of Leviticus. Whereas homosexuality is “detestable,” adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10, is punishable by death. Homosexuality is “detestable,” Adultery is “punishable by death.” Quite a difference. And when three of the four Gospels of the New Testament tell us that “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27), it makes it difficult to apply these teachings of the Bible literally.

    Add to that Deuteronomy 24’s permission for a man to divorce his wife with a piece of paper (“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house…”) against Matthew 19’s admonition from Jesus against divorce (“anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery”) and the question becomes even more tangled.

    I am a Bible-believing Christian who believes the greatest commandments – Love God and Love Your Neighbor – take precedence over all the other rules. I wrestle with the Bible daily in learning all its passages and what they mean to me in today’s world. I do know that the Bible is not to be taken in “sound bites” but needs to be understood in its greater context.

  8. yournuts - May 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    If someone has an opinion that supports Manny Pacquiao then he is considered an idiot or a racist. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. A man and man or a woman and woman is a domestic union. I have lots of friends who are gay but if my belief is that a marriage is between a man and a woman then somehow left wing people call you names! I find it sad that my values seem to be much higher than some people who threaten me by calling me names. Excuse me if I don’t think that homosexually is marriage. Nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt have equal rights as domestic partners but marriage is a bond between a man and a woman.