Advertisement

Pacquiao Same-Sex Marriage Controversy Continues

BY Michael Woods ON May 16, 2012
PDFPrintE-mail

Pacquiao workout 120514 006aThe writer who helped created a storm of controversy when he wrote that Manny Pacquiao is at odds with President Obama's personal stance on same-sex marriage has gone on the offensive against other press-persons who reported on the flak.

Filipino-American Granville Ampong, who lives in LA and writes for the Conservative Examiner, published a piece on May 14 in which quotes from Pacquiao were interspersed with paraphrases. This tactic promoted some confusion among readers of the column, and reporters who picked up the story, and interpreted it.

Ampong, in a follow-up column published on May 16, went into heavy-duty denial mode. The headline to this new column, "Biased writers grossly twisted Pacquiao's view on same-sex marriage," seeks to absolve him of even a hint of culpability in the continuing saga which has boiled down in the minds of some to, Is Manny Pacquiao biased against homosexuals to the point where he supports Biblical passages which call for gays to be killed?

I myself wasn't totally clear on several passages, and I went into some of that yesterday. This one, for instance, had me reading and re-reading: "Pacquiao's directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin,inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation, notwithstanding what Leviticus 20:13 has been pointing all along: “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.”

First off, the use of the word "directive" threw me off. I wasn't sure if Pacquiao told Ampong merely that he disagreed with Obama, when the President on May 9 said to ABC News that he is personally pro same-sex marriage...or, if as the use of the word "directive" (ie an official or authoritative instruction) strongly implies, that Pacquiao communicated to Ampong that he wants Obama to reverse his stance, so as not to "promote sin."

The introduction of the verse from Leviticus, which is used as a justification by fundamentalists who opine that their God and the Bible explicitly oppose homosexuality, further muddied the piece. Some might think that the presence of quotation marks meant that Pacquiao quoted aloud the highly-charged passage. (And, since Manny has of late been stating that we all should use the Bible as a "manual" for living, some might even interpret that Pacquiao thinks that passage from Leviticus should be strictly adhered to ie he is a proponent of gays being put to death. Um, I think I can safely say Pacquiao's "conservative" views don't go that far...though I wish Ampong had made damned sure in his piece to tell us EXACTLY what Pacquiao's beliefs are in this sphere.)

Ampong tried to clarify the Leviticus reference in the May 16 column when he wrote, "Pacquiao never said nor recited,nor invoked and nor did he ever refer to such context." Perhaps it was Ampong's use of the word "notwithstanding" (ie in spite of) which threw some of us off. Again, I read and re-read the confusing portion. Was Ampong saying that Pacquiao is calling for Obama to ask societies to "fear God and not promote sin" in spite of the Bible's call to kill gays? Was Ampong strongly implying that Pacquiao actually totally embraces the Leviticus stance? At the very least, the writer's wording needed to be made much more clear, to remove any hint of confusion on what the Congressman/boxer thinks. And fault lies with Ampong, not a reporter for USA Today or LA Weekly, who he calls out in his defensive follow-up column, for not communicating clearly.

One could take issue with Ampong's phrasing used in the original column when referring to the "sweeping campaign of Obama favoring the gays and lesbians to legally marry is nothing more than a direct attack on the moral society and against the creative power and will of God." Sweeping campaign?The President has been too silent for too long in the minds of proponents for full rights for gay people who want to be able to marry the same way heteros do. They would say they'd like a much more "sweeping campaign." But that is a minor quibble, really.

We can assume, I guess, that Pacquiao actually did say, on the record: "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other. 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." Which is his right, of course, though I am of the belief that no government should be in the business of legislating based off the Christian, or any Bible, which many atheists and even many religious folk believe is a compilation of stories written by many different authors, and contains too many egregious relics from the dark ages, like calling for the killing of gay people, to be embraced as any sort of manual for living in a modern, presumably enlightened era.

Ampong then wrote, in his original column: "Pacquiao believes same-sex marriage is an abomination and its advancement should be stopped starting from the high offices of the U.S. to block possible legalization." I would like to know if Pacquiao used the word "abomination," and why Ampong didn't make that clear with the use of quotation marks.

In his May 16 column, Ampong said that he didn't intend to have Pacquiao's views presented as his own. "As my style of literary writing suggests in almost all of my columns, the critical thoughts I tied up in the structure of thoughts I wanted to convey pertinent to this issue at hand do not translate Pacquiao's point of view, however conservative I am in my exposition," he wrote. But it seemed clear to me, correct me if I am wrong, that Ampong is in virtual lock-step with Pacquiao on the issue of same-sex marriage, and I find it ludicrous that he denies this. Especially when right after he issues that disclaimer, he wrote: "I strongly commend Pacquiao's standing relative to same-sex marriage issue as only that has bearing to the morality side."

From start to finish, Ampong's original column lacks clarity. To close, he wrote: "Meanwhile, Pacquiao has not expressed, as well, support for Obama's presidential candidacy for this coming November elections, nor did he ever mention of possibly declining endorsement which might be sought by the Obama campaign strategists." It isn't clear to me if Ampong asked Pacquiao if he would support Obama's 2012 candidacy, or if the politician-boxer even so much as hinted that he might decline to endorse the President. Pacquiao, you might recall, seemed pro Obama back in 2008, when he said that he used the campaign battle-cry "Yes we can!" as a mantra of inspiration ahead of his Dec. 6, 2008 clash with Oscar De La Hoya.

Ampong gets points for chuztpah, if not an "A" grade in the sphere of syntax, when he demands "biased" writers say sorry to Pacquiao. "I hereby demand both Weir and Romero to apologize to Pacquiao. They, being writers for USA Today and LA Weekly respectively, should have a better reading comprehension than I do, rhetorically," he thundered.

I think Ampong would be better off demanding more from himself, and looking in the mirror on this one. He delved into some seriously hot-button territory, and owed it to himself, and the readers, and Pacquiao, to be as clear as humanly possible. He came up short, and would be advised to engage in some cleanup duty that doesn't consist of finger-pointing.

Follow Woods on Twitter here.

Comment on this article

jacubi50 says:

Pac didnt' say anything about putting gays to death. It was fabricated by Ampong. Pac's basic message was about entering God's kingdom required marriage to be between a man and woman. Pac does not believe in same sex marriage and that's his prerogaitve. The majority of Americans hold his view as well as conservatives. So this is all about nothing. If anything, this may have brought attention to Pac vs Bradley next month. LOL.

jzzy says:

I can't see Manny saying anything extreme about anybody. But, I feel this whole gay
rights B.S. is going too far. We are faced with much more pressing matters in this country that are threatening our future and now we're catering to deviants?? NUFF SAID

undisputed34 says:

Catering to deviants? What does that mean? If anyone here is familiar with history, we went through this same hoopla and worse, when it was interracial marriage being discussed. And when blacks weren't even considered fully human. I personally think that people are entitled to live their lives however they choose within reason, but once you put your opinion out there for public consumption you open yourself up to be attacked regardless of your standpoint. If Pacquiao isn't discussing policy in his country at a forum which calls for that, he should be talking about boxing and his upcoming fight. Besides, all this gay rights stuff is just a distraction thrown up by politicians to instigate hostility between the two groups when the real problem is between the average joe and the corporations making slaves of us all.

I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't make it cool for me to visit a synagogue and give a soliloquy on the holocaust. Pacquiao is a great BOXER. He should stick to that until the day he becomes a great politician, if there even is such a thing.

deepwater says:

Catering to deviants? What does that mean? If anyone here is familiar with history, we went through this same hoopla and worse, when it was interracial marriage being discussed. And when blacks weren't even considered fully human. I personally think that people are entitled to live their lives however they choose within reason, but once you put your opinion out there for public consumption you open yourself up to be attacked regardless of your standpoint. If Pacquiao isn't discussing policy in his country at a forum which calls for that, he should be talking about boxing and his upcoming fight. Besides, all this gay rights stuff is just a distraction thrown up by politicians to instigate hostility between the two groups when the real problem is between the average joe and the corporations making slaves of us all.

I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't make it cool for me to visit a synagogue and give a soliloquy on the holocaust. Pacquiao is a great BOXER. He should stick to that until the day he becomes a great politician, if there even is such a thing.


Dude how do you have the logic to compare discrimination against blacks in the civil rights movement to peoples sexual preference today? bigotry against blacks was because of the color of their skin not their sexual preference. it is wrong to judge someone on their appearence ,whether they are black,asian or white and it is just fine to disagree with someones sexual preference. whether they are staight or gay. I know alot of guys that dont like to go down on women. should they be boycotted because they dont like it? and just remember who made the marriage laws in this country= the democrats to keep whites and blacks from marrying.

undisputed34 says:

Quite easily deepwater. Im not comparing discrimination against blacks to peoples sexual preference... Im comparing the discrimination between the two groups. discrimination is discrimination whether it's against, blacks, whites, heterosexual, homosexual, cats, dogs ... Whatever. its wrong in all cases and the logic I used is during the time when interracial marriage was a huge issue, people attempted to use the same biblical references among other ludicrous reasons for why it should be banned. It's just fine to disagree with someone's sexual preference, it isn't fine when you make laws to prevent them from practicing them. That's the point I'm trying to make. And in reference to the article, pacquiao is free to express his opinions/beliefs just like anybody else but as a professional boxer with a fight coming up, BOXING is what he should be talking about in the media. And as a politician he should have more tact in choosing his words so as to prevent them being misconstrued like the article above is suggesting..

deepwater says:

You make some good points. The bottom line is government should be out of the marriage business and out of the bedroom. So what do you think of pacman being banned from the hoolywood mall because of his speech? isnt that discrimination? we do not have the freedom of speech to talk about the weather. To ban someone because of their speech whether you agree with it or disagree with it is straight out of east german stasi handbook.The left wants to claim intolerance here, but it is surely the highest form of intolerance not to allow a religious person who openly expresses him or herself onto the premises of an outdoor shopping mall. The Grove features a kosher hot dog stand frequented by Orthodox Jews, virtually all of whom oppose same-sex marriage. Will they ban them?

undisputed34 says:

You got me there, deep...that's why I say personal opinions should be expressed in a forum that allows them...the rights that we think ourselves guaranteed by the constitution have long since had an asterisk added to each and every one. There are many areas that the government shouldn't delve into but it's obvious to any with the eyes to see that this place is every bit as dictatorial as some 3rd world countries. Our governments tactics are just camouflaged much better.

Radam G says:

I'm with deepwater taking all you muthasuckas to deep and drowning the facism and all the adverse ismes outta those meddling a$$es.

Let free speak FLOW! I don't worry about whom the Sweet Britcheses blow, or whom Sour Pantieses trick or lick. Free expression to all.

It ain't worth a hill of beans being concern where others put their private parts. We will all eventually lie long in taking dirt naps, then we will ever live fudging with people in life. Life is fudging SHORT. Dirt napping is longer than a muthasnooze. As far as I know dat bytch is eternal. So just lead your life and cut out da flickin' strife. Holla!

Money Jay says:

This site and it's authors can be very one sided and have double standards. This article is pointing sole blame on the reporter, and not Manny. If the shoe was on the other foot, and if Floyd would've said the same thing, he'd be killed by the media. I really don't care what the gays do, this is America. HOWEVER, It's in the bible as a sin, but no sin is greater than the other. There used to be a time in this country when blacks couldn't marry whites...but it is funny that Manny is so holy, but he has a Hennessy Ad? He's also admitted cheating on his wife, but he wants to pass judgement? He needs to be worried about big head Bradley...cuz that boy looked like he wanted to kill freddie roach in that face off with Max K. lol!

dino da vinci says:

@MJ. Where is the double standard exactly? I can say this much, this site is known for NOT having a policy where a particular agenda is being pushed, which is just about assured elsewhere. I truly believe most of the cast and crew truly appreciate the greatness we are witnessing daily. If boxing had the heavyweight cast from 15-20 years ago campaigning now (and I don't particularly care what country they originate from), boxing would be in the midst of experiencing one of it's better runs in the entire history of the sport. We know all the names, so I'm not going to list them here. But twenty years from now, these active and recently retired guys will be our Robinsons, our Marcianos, our Moores. (Guess who will be playing the role of the Ol' Mongoose?). I don't agree. We don't bash fighters and we don't pile on. I would like a proper example so the misunderstanding can be clarified.

liselboko says:

ampong is a wierdo who wants pacquiao to be demoralized!

Radam G says:

Money Jay, just handle your six-figure papers, because you have been off lately with everything else.

In the "Bible," it doesn't say that "gays" are a sin. Matter of fact, Jesus clearly said that he is cool with gays. And if you follow him, you'd leave them da double fudge along. Like some many bigots, you don't even know the Bible and apparently haven't read it, or you would know what I know.

Watch! You will come back with a retort that I'm making up syet, and that's not in the holy book. And then when I show your arse to be 100 percent WRONG, you will never the verse about gays doesn't really mean what I say.

Nonetheless, unlike you I was made to read and study the Bible in five different languages, so I'm certain about translation. Holla!

dino da vinci says:

You make some good points. The bottom line is government should be out of the marriage business and out of the bedroom. So what do you think of pacman being banned from the hoolywood mall because of his speech? isnt that discrimination? we do not have the freedom of speech to talk about the weather. To ban someone because of their speech whether you agree with it or disagree with it is straight out of east german stasi handbook.The left wants to claim intolerance here, but it is surely the highest form of intolerance not to allow a religious person who openly expresses him or herself onto the premises of an outdoor shopping mall. The Grove features a kosher hot dog stand frequented by Orthodox Jews, virtually all of whom oppose same-sex marriage. Will they ban them?


Real good post.

Related Articles

behindthescenesatpacquiaobradley2parttwo
behindthescenesatpacquiaobradley2partone
howhediditvideoanalysisofpacquiaoswinoverbradley
mayweathervspacquiaoisbulletproof
payperviewslessismoregiveourwalletsabreak
freddieroachassessesmannyseffortbradleyscalfexcuse
pacquiaoregressesagainstbradleybutwinsbiggerthistime
hbooffersmannyswinthenqthefightgameqonapril19
ringsidereportitsmannythistimeoverbradleyinvegas
masterfulmannypacquiaobeatsbradleyandthejudgesagree

Latest Videos on BoxingChannel.tv

Facebook
Twitter
Zona de Boxeo
fight results
Live Boxing Coverage
IBOFP

Prediction:

62.5%
37.5%
Loading...