How the Gay-Marriage Mob Slimed Manny Pacquiao


Pages: 1 2

Boxing champion Manny Pacquiao is guilty — of being true to his Catholic faith. The gay-marriage mob is guilty — of the very ugly bigotry it claims to abhor. And left-wing media outlets are guilty — of stoking false narratives that shamelessly demonize religion in the name of compassion.

The attempted crucifixion of Pacquiao this week was fueled by an online army of cultural shakedown artists, generously funded by billionaire George Soros and other so-called progressive philanthropists.

On Tuesday, a freelance writer for the Examiner.com published an interview with Pacquiao conducted at his Los Angeles residence. Journalist Granville Ampong asked the pugilist his views on gay marriage in light of President Obama’s flip-flop-flip on the issue. “God’s words first,” Pacquiao said. “Obey God’s law first before considering the laws of man.”

After suggesting that Obama should consult the Bible as his “manual for life,” Pacquiao added in earnest: “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.”

The interview then included a scriptural reference to Leviticus 20:13, which states: “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.”

Publications including USA Today, LA Weekly and Village Voice all ran outraged pieces on Pacquiao’s “homophobic” calls for violence. But it was the interviewer, not Pacquiao, who made the citation. Ampong demanded apologies on behalf of Pacquiao. Feckless professional journalists blamed Ampong for their own biased reading and then grudgingly “clarified” the truth in buried updates.

“I didn’t say that, that’s a lie,” Pacquiao told anyone who would listen. “I didn’t know that quote from Leviticus because I haven’t read the Book of Leviticus yet.” Too late. The politically correct bloodhounds were in full hunting mode.

The Courage Campaign, a community-organizing outfit that claims to have 750,000 members and is funded by the radical Tides Foundation, immediately called on Pacquiao-sponsor Nike to drop him over his “hate speech against gays.” The group took to Twitter to demand that the athletic shoe company “Drop Manny,” the “homophobic boxer.” The call was amplified by Think Progress, an online character assassination squad backed by George Soros.

Pages: 1 2

  • John

    Before a few days ago, I've never heard any gay or lesbian speak anything bad about Pacquiao. Not until he felt the need to call gays and lesbians sinners. For decades, the LGBT community has been tormented and demonized by Evangelicals and other religious right folks, and frankly, we've just gotten fed up of it. For me personally, I'm a huge Pacquiao fan. Have been for years. But, once someone attacks me for who I am, and calls me a sinner without even knowing who I am as a person, then that person has crossed the line. If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. This is pretty much what happened between Pacquiao and the LGBT community and it's allies. It's a form of self-defense.

    • Carlos Perera

      John, Pacquiao did not call you or any individual a sinner. And he did not torment or demonize anyone. He simply stated that, based on his religious beliefs, he felt the marriage covenant should remain what it has always been in Western Civilization, going back well before Christian times, a covenant between a man and a woman. All of the tormenting and demonizing that went on in this incident was done _to_ Pacquiao, not by him. Your assessment that the attacks on Pacquiao were "a form of self-defense" sure sounds to me like a rationalization for the attempt to shut him up. In your world view, I guess only the "LGBT community" has the right to speak up for what it believes.

      • John

        The sinner part was on the article and also on his website the other day. As for my "torment and demonize" comment, I wasn't refering to Pacquiao, it was more to the decades of bashing from Evangelicals like Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, etc., and even Republicans. Let's be honest, gays and lesbians have been verbal targets for decades, and a wedge-issue for the past 4 or 5 presidential elections. Although, I think the Pacquiao incident got worse than it would have been, because of the added Leviticus quote by the reporter, which the reporter himself said he added himself. I read that story fairly early, before it exploded on Facebook, and based on how it was written, it did sound like it was a direct quote from Manny. My initial reaction was, this is dangerous, some ignorant, crazy Pacquiao fan might really act on this and harm someone, just because Manny said it. I did go back to re-read the story the next day, and the part with Leviticus did sound different. Almost like it was edited by the reporter.

      • PhillipGaley

        There are those sodomy sympathizers who, in a kind of denial of “man as the social creature”, are purveyors of the notion that, the contagions which sodomites inadvertently nurture in the quiet of their own bedrooms, is no one’s business but their own, . . .

        And with this, I can say without fear of successful contradiction that, while many men will go to war upon thought of safety, security, and providence for a woman and the children which she is to bear, only a statistically insignificant number of those men would even consider going to war in support for devotees to the sodomite life-style.

        So then, should some wish to injure the USA, I think that, installation of the elements of sodomy as acceptable military protocol, would be a strong and virulent beginning, . . . and perhaps, most signal to some kind of a national ending, . . . for, upon the witness of many, throughout frozen millenia of time past in the examples of angels seen to perform in guiding the activities and elements of war, for an army constituted in contingents of sodomites, there can be no such hopeful anticipation.

        But then too, I've heard that, upon entrance upon war, the sodomites would be the first to be killed or cleansed from the ranks, again, simply upon the sodomite's failure and actual inability to espouse dyed-in-the-wool commitment to the common goal—wife, G0D, and country; so, . . . probably, the larger part of the war for mommys, is yet to be actually decided, . . .

    • kafir4life

      John – You should have much better luck with your colleagues from the religion of peace. The GLBT community has been siding with them for years against the conservatives in this country (and the islamists are HAPPY to have such useful idiots that they'll kill you last). I understand that they're VERY tolerant of a gay lifestyle. Pacquiao, Falwell, et al want to SAVE you, not throw you from the tallest building, then beating you to death should you survive.
      But as a homosexual muslim woman hopelessly trapped in a heterosexual Jewish man's body, I can sympathize with your plight. Why I'm torn between having a minion and cutting my own head off. And what I have to go through at airports would make you cringe.

      I'm also assuming there are shopping centers that cater to the hetero community, and I'm hopeful that they avail themselves of shopping where they won't be ostrasized.

      • RoguePatriot6

        "and the islamists are HAPPY to have such useful idiots that they'll kill you last"

        Wrong, these are usually the first to be exterminated.

    • Coach

      Liar. A homosexual liking boxing????? Go to a soccer thread or some article on interior design. Leave the pugilism to the masculine types.

      • John

        You obviously do not know very many homosexuals, and base everything on your own stereotypes of people. It would be futile to try and prove my love of sports to anyone on an online comment board. So with that, I say have a good day, Coach!

        • RoguePatriot6

          If it is a stereotype, then it's no more ridiculous than the left's stereotypes of Christians or conservatives.

        • stevefraser

          Homosexuals love the maleness of boxing….just like female homosexuals go for the WNBA.

    • Mo_

      "For decades, the LGBT community has been tormented and demonized by Evangelicals and other religious right folks, and frankly, we've just gotten fed up of it. "

      Tormented and demonized? What are you, 12? Grow up. Some people do not accept this lifestyle. No amount of whining, bullying, threatening or even physical violence is going to change that. And that drives them crazy.

      Thank you for admitting your hatred and bigotry, and for admitting that you support such behavior by others. That's what I want to hear, honesty!

      • stevefraser

        It's the physical revulsion and repulsiveness that people are reacting to. Blame Darwin and 1 Billion years of evolution for the biologically based negative feelings and reactions.

        • Mo_

          Are you saying people don't have a right to express revulsion about something?

    • stevefraser

      It's not "who you are", but "what you do"….and it's a symptom something went wrong….would you help by commiting your "community" to finding a cure?

    • Serafino

      Tolerance, people, tolerance! Remember how you always wanted the world to be tolerant of your gay views? Well, this country has definitely become more tolerant of you. Please extend the same courtesies to others who may disagree with you.

    • Guest

      A sinner is someone who rejects Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior. Christianity is a relationship and not a religion. Christians are sinners saved by grace. There are many sins such as pride, not loving God, rejection of God’s sacrificial gift of His Son Jesus, lying, greed, fear, murder, hatred, dishonoring parents and every trait possessed by fallen humanity.

  • John

    I personally don't have a problem with religious people. I'm a Catholic, and I think religion is a very good thing, when used properly. When used to help the needy, as a guide to how to live life. But if it's used to thump the Bible and attack or control other people, then that's when I don't agree with it. If you don't mess with the LGBT community, it won't mess with you either. It is a free country, and everyone's entitled to their own opinion. But you can't go around criticizing and judging others, and not expect those you criticize to just take it, and not verbally retaliate back to you. Moral of the story – just let people live their own lives. LIve and let live.

    • Carlos Perera

      John, it's grand of you not to have a problem with religious people . . . at least when they meet your personal standards for using religion "properly." In this case, I guess that means that Catholics who are not John need to vet their interpretations of the Church's moral theology with you before expressing them publicly. As to "let[ting] people live their own lives," Mr. Pacquiao's statements addressed a public issue, the definition of marriage. He is not the one trying to overturn the structure of any society's core social institution, marriage and the family. Sexual morality is important because it impacts that institution, and all religions have a great deal to say about it. Likewise, all societies define their core institutions based on the religious beliefs of their members. When these conflict, the conflict must be resolved somehow, and, in a democracy with free-speech and freedom-of-religion rights, that means hashing differing points of view out in the public forum. As far as I can tell, Mr. Pacquiao does not wish to suppress anyone's right to do so . . . rather, it is the homosexualists who are trying to suppress his right to speak out.

      • John

        As a gay man, I would think that I know more about homosexuality than you do. I grew up in the Church too, and I do find the hypocricy in some people of faith quoting verses from the Bible left and right about homosexuality, but skip others. As for your comment of "definition of marriage", marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. Polygamy is a norm in many societies, polyandry to some extent, arranged marriages, a brother being obligated to marry the wife of a deceased brother. Marriage also used to be for the purpose of securing property rights. In America, marriage has been revised as late as 1967, when interracial marriage was allowed. So who's definition of marriage that cannot be changed are you really speaking of? Carlos' definition? In our country, there are two parts to marriage, one being the recognition by the church, and one being the recognition of the government. Gays and lesbians are not fighting to redefine the church's "definition of marriage", but instead the government's "definition of marriage".

        • John

          … Which like I've stated earlier was redifined just 45 years ago with the Supreme Court ruling on Loving vs. Virginia. Getting married at City Hall would do just fine. It doesn't have to be at a church, a temple, a synagogue, or a mosque.

          I have no problem with religious people like I said, but I do with hypocritical ones. The ones that only focus on the biblical verses against homosexuality to make a point, but ignore others such as Mark 10:10-12 regarding divorce and Corinthians 11:6 on women's uncovered hair. I'm not advocating that every single thing in the Bible be followed by modern society, because if we do follow everything in the Bible, we'd be living similarly to how the Talibans live. But to turn a blind eye on these types of verses I mentioned, because it's either inconvenient or outdated, yet focus with so much intensity on those to prove a point against homosexuality, is simply disingenuous.

          • fiddler

            Your logic of "people" being hypocrites in other areas of their faith does not produce any legitimacy for your argument. If the Law Maker says that marriage is one way, then no amount of mental gymnastics can justify it being any other way. I agree with the boxer, you may not. To cast aside what the Creator intended is your choice; just don't hope for any help by deflecting it toward others.

            When Peter saw John after being confronted by the resurrected Christ he said, "what about him?" to which Jesus replied, "if I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me".

          • patrickfitzmichael

            John, you do have a problem with religious people.

            You say that you don't want them to "criticize or control."

            In this instance, it is you who is controlling. Controlling which parts of our religion we may follow. It's not up to you to decide. We don't need a permission slip from "gay" John.

            As far as criticizing…what's wrong with that? I criticize all the time and I suspect you do too. I will not forfeit my right to criticize. But in saying so, you tactically admit your true agenda. You want affirmation. You want it so badly because you know that you're wrong. You can sodomize other men in your bedroom, but no one–absolutely NO ONE–has to tell you that you're right. In fact, in a free country, everyone has the right to tell you that you're wrong. Get over it, crybaby. I'll exercise that right right now. You're wrong, John.

            In a free society, we have a right to say that. But as this Filipino fellow demonstrates, we aren't such a free society any more. The thuggish, fascistic example of Britain and Canada are our future.

            By the way, there's a difference between policy and definition. No one in 1967 believed that two people of different races was not a marriage, only that they should not be married. It's entirely different.

        • kafir4life

          Google "definition of marriage".
          You should get another word. Leave ours alone. It already has a definition. You should be entitled to all the legal rights that currently married people are entitled to. Find another word. Call it whatever you want. Don't mess with ours.

          • John

            Let me ask you this questions. Do you also fiercely advocate against divorce? I would think divorce is a bigger threat to the definition of marriage. What about against divorced people re-marrying or them sleeping with someone else? The Bible calls this practice as adultery (Mark 10:10-12), and adultery is definitely considered a sin. It's even one of the Ten Commandments. What about being against non-virgins marrying? This also goes against the Bible, yet also gets a look the other way. These are supposed to be damaging to the "defintion of marriage" as well, yet why are there nobody going against these practices, or voting to ban them?

          • kafir4life

            Wrong guy, John. I'm not particularly religious, and as far as I know, nobody is trying to alter the DEFINITION of the word "divorce" or "adultary". I would lobby for the right to call a goose a duck, but a definition of "duck" already exists, and it's just plain stupid to change a definition of something just because it suits your desire.
            I really don't care if you are gay. I really don't. It doesn't affect me. You should have the same rights under the law. Absolutely. Note tho' that the definition of marriage is as follows (from google and others)

            1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
            2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

            Find another word!!!!!

          • John

            Oh, my bad. Normally, the people most adamantly against the word "marriage" being used are very protective of the religious definition of it. So may I respectfully ask why you would be so against it being called the same word, other than because it's the definition under Google? It can be called Civil Union, I guess. But if the rights and it's worth are pretty much the same, isn't it basically just calling a duckling a baby duck?

          • kafir4life

            Call it a Civil Union. I don't care. Why should the definition of a word be changed because you "wish it"? Can I ask why you must call it marriage when it obviously bothers a lot of people?
            The rights and "worth" should be the same. Call it an iguana if you'd like, unless someone looks it up.
            I have a question for you. How would you and your partner go about creating a human being?

          • fiddler

            Your argument doesn't wash. It is not up to you to arbitrate for an exception based on other people's failings. You have what the Creator said; you seem to have at least a basic understanding of Scripture. It is up to you to consider what the Creator and nature have ordained. To do otherwise may be perilous, not from this world but from the next.

            "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your house".

        • RoguePatriot6

          "I grew up in the Church too, and I do find the hypocricy in some people of faith quoting verses from the Bible left and right about homosexuality,"

          You act as if homosexuality is the only thing that those of the Christian faith speak against. Fornication, adultry, lustful oogling of women, pornography are all viewed as viewed as sexual immorality by Christ and by most Christians.

    • Jakareh

      You're not a Catholic, and neither is anyone else who blatantly disregards the Church's teachings.

      • John

        You are entitled to your opinion, but not every single Catholic church believes the way you do about homosexuals. Whatever your opinion is about my Catholicism really has no bearing in my own relationship with God. So that's all it is, an opinion. Have a good day!

        • intrcptr2

          Uh, John, Catholic means universal; there are no "different" Catholic churches, there is just the one. You either accept what Rome says, and you are Catholic, or you don't and you're not. By proclaiming your sexual perversion as acceptable to SOME Catholic churches, you are declaring that the words of Christ, and the entire Bible, do not matter to you.

          It is not Jakareh's opinion of Catholicism which you are trangressing, it is the Vatican's. I am not Catholic (Frankly believe you'd be far batter off leaving it, in favor of Christ), but for you to argue that you are a faithful Catholic, while practicing fornication, and that your beef is with hypocritical religious types, makes you the highest order of hypocrite.

    • stevefraser

      Please make that the LBGTQ community, or some might think you are a homophobiacisticer.

  • Hyhybt

    Why does this piece treat the actions of people who were *misinformed* as if they were acting in full knowledge of the truth?

  • Carlos Perera

    The people who were "misinformed" persisted in damning Mr. Pacquiao long after he informed them fully as to what he had said. I doubt very much they acted mistakenly, given the vitriol they persisted on releasing against him. As in similar cases, the homosexualist crowd's principal argument against Mr. Pacquiao was "shut up (or else)!"

  • http://cornetmustichgroup.blogspot.com Jos. A. Mustich

    Religions dont own civil marriage or women's bodies in America, so take a hike.
    Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA, Justice of the Peace
    It's a civil rights issue, period….

    • Carlos Perera

      "Shut up!," he argued.

    • RoguePatriot6

      You're right, religions don't own it.

      Many people associate "religion" with "God". Religion in its self means-a committed or strict practice. My habbit of going to the gym everyday can be a religion. God never asked anyone to join a religion, He asks for obedience to His will. People can call it a religion all they want, but what it boils down to is God's will.

      However, God owns the rights to marriage and by His definition, is from where most if not all of the world's nations got theirs. He always have and He always will, regardless of mine, your's or anyone elses opinion.

    • intrcptr2

      Well, actually it isn't.

      Or are you saying that you support polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality?
      Because if the state has NO interest in regulating marriage (Which the makers of our current Federal government most assuredly denied), then there are no "kinds" of marriage which can rightfully be proscribed.

      The nature of civil society demands that we all agree to restrict certain behaviors which are widely considered less than beneficial; spitting on the sidewalks, jaywalking, driving through red lights, illicit drug use, child abandonment (Let us leave abortion aside for just now), polygamy, same-sex "marriage". The only sure way to do this, is to have a common moral base. In the last few generations, ours has evaporated; Christianity, broadly defined.
      Of course without that base, Civil Rights would not really even exist. But to argue about civil rights to the exclusion of biblical morality is simply lunatick.

  • pardonmygrammar

    LOL, very funny. The Left always talk about tolerance and acceptance but they'll accept your ideas only if it matches theirs. They have the "right" to offend hundreds of thousands of right-wingers but if a right-winger speaks up and offends them they'll say that right-wingers are outdated, full of hate and bigotry.

  • waterwillows

    Sin means to 'miss the mark' and that gays have certainly done.

    Nor do I see them as any kind of blessing to the peoples of this world.

  • RoguePatriot6

    Eventhough you won't hear of this on any liberal news channels or agencies, should this really be a surprise to anyone considering the moral climate in our country now?

    Just last month a young child's poster in Massachusettes, of a family consisting of a Mom, Dad and children was highly criticized. The school was actually contemplating editing or blacking out the images of mom and dad as to not offend same sex couples.

  • RoguePatriot6

    My question is:
    Who is imposing on whom?

    One of the biggest arguments from the homoexual activists in this country is the "religious bible thumpers imposing their religious views in on our lives".

    First and foremost marriage isn't a "state" or "government issue" eventhough our society has reduced it to such. We wouldn't even know what marriage is if it wasn't for God. It's His institution and His to define, not ours. Since alot of our civil laws, COTUS and Declaration of Independence were based largely from bibilical principles (I know this burns lib/progs to no end because it's true) it only begs to ask who are the ones that are "imposing" their views. It certainly isn't the Christian communities since the laws and foundations of the United States were based off of alot of beliefs and values that we still hold true today. In other words, we were here first, LONG before liberal/progessive thinking and views were imposed upon our society by those who from the very beginning were bent on destroying it. (con't)

    • intrcptr2

      I need to disagree about the state's interest in marriage.

      Since God instituted both, I take it that government is to have a say in the adminstration and promulgation of marriage. I do agree that removing God and His wishes from the calculus dooms us to getting it wrong. I might go even farther and argue that as we distance ourselves from God's marriage, we knock the foundations out from under society itself. Or rather, since marriage is a society in microcosm, the basic, fundamental task of government is to uphold the true concept of marriage; intimate union between two separate individuals in which the god-given task of "tending to the garden" is undertaken. I suggest also that contract law can be derived from the marriage covenant.

      Our Federal democratic system implies that the majority "impose" its will upon the minority (Your reasoning about "who was here first" is quite right). It is this tyranny which the Constitution and, more exactly, the Bill of Rights is intended to impede (And the false parallel with sexual behavior gets under my skin no end). While it took far too long for folks to accept that race relations tended to be exempted from this legal/moral dynamic, the system tends vindicate its designers.
      Where Madison et al failed (And I do rather doubt ANY others could have succeeded here) is in expecting simple majority power to overcome the "tyranny of the minority". Our system has been subverted by various minorities such that educators have successfully extirpated God from the schoolbooks, and the immoral have succssfully convinced everyone that not only is sexual morality no one's business but even more, that the scruples of our grandparents were themselves immoral and evil (Somewhat ironically in that, contra my former point, this was done by putting their beds in the streets).

      I applaud the original reporter for demanding that others cease from crucifying Pacquiano. 'Tis a pity they prefer sacrifice to obedience.

  • RoguePatriot6

    Now, I know that the lib/prog trolls are just salivating over this and are itching to pull the "well then, it was you people who justified slavery back then too, so I guess we should go back to that route also".
    Well, SAVE IT!!!

    Slaves owned in the bible by God's chosen at the time were treated FAR different from those owned by oppressive nations such as, Egypt and those owned during the Atlantic slave trade era. Also God in the New Testament laid down some guidelines on the treatment of slaves or servants.
    Christiianity wasn't the motivation of owning slaves as alot would LIKE to believe. Christians were part of the main drive to abolish slavery. So, if you are going to falsely credit Christianity for slavery don't forget to credit it for the latter also.

    • Mo_

      Yes, indeed! It's laughable to see Leftists/homosexual activist groups/supporters bring up the Bible at all. They've never cracked it open, except maybe to point out some obscure passage that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the issue.

      The repeated comparison of homosexuality/same-sex "marriage" to slavery or the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s is also ridiculous. Color has no bearing on a marriage. But gender surely does!

      As the kids on the internet say, epic FAIL on all counts.

  • mrbean

    Oh dear we "breeders" as they call us must not speak our minds lest we hurt the feelings of all the cornholers and muff divers because they want to redefine "Unholy Abomination" as "Same Sex Marriage". No we can't have that now can we. After all the homosexual and lesbian debauchery and deviancy is in vogue now.

  • Ghostwriter

    I know I'm going to make John angry for saying this but it needs to be said. To me,homosexuality is a private matter that should be discussed only between that person's family and friends. It doesn't need to be paraded in front of the whole world and shoved in everyone else's faces. You try to respect my rights and I'll try to respect yours. Just don't shove it in my face.

    • BS77

      Yes, shove it in your face

  • stevefraser

    Homosexuality is a sign something went wrong.

  • Brujo Blanco

    If the Grove is a public accommodation then the boxer's rights were violated. The Grove broke the law when they denied him access because of his religious beliefs. I do not expect the DOJ to protect the rights of anyone who is perceived as a right winger.

  • Ellman

    I stopped paying attention to the liberal propaganda attacks a long time ago. Almost all of the time their accusations and condemnations have no basis in fact or experience. It continually amazes me how they are able to influence public opinion and to intimidate businesses to PUNISH those they unjustly label as intolerant bigots. They have no more right to proclaim homosexuality 'acceptable' or 'normal' than a religious person has to proclaim the exact opposite. Hence, it is they who demonstrate INTOLERANCE, not those they accuse of it.

  • julien malod

    i am julien malod fistiniere and i am gay from Ile de la Reunion, and i think people should be more liberal and accept gay mariage and even, gay adoption, because when love is around the corner, you can t do anythig , boy or girl, gay or straight. Thus, common people should be more tolerant towards homosexual folks like us
    Julien malod
    Gayctivist http://julien-malod-fistiniere.centerblog.net/1-j

  • John

    I never said there weren't interracial marriages before. If you also go back in history, interracial marriages was argued against as unnatural and an abomination. Mostly based on religious grounds. We view it now in a natural light, but definitely not by many back in the 60s and even years after it. Even as late as 1998, South Carolina had a ban on interracial marriages.

  • John

    Hahaha. I tried responding to your comment respectfully, and you responded back with your hateful diatribe. I didn't respond back to you to get into a hateful online war of words with you, so it's probably best to end this dialogue here. Have a good day, Stu!

  • mrbean

    Hey John, liberal charlatans posing as scientists have put forward that homosexual behavior is genetic rather than acquired in humans. Homosexual behavior like all human behavior is acquired. And as for bringing animals into the dicussion, they do all sorts of wierd stuff like eat their own excrement and even their own young.

  • intrcptr2

    Only in America, John. Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome; all these utterly ignored what we consider race.
    Even in Medieval Europe, race was pretty well unknown as a social or scientific, much less moral, category. At the same time, having homosexual relations WAS recognized as abomination, everywhere.

    There is not one shred of scientific evidence that sexual behavior is biological determined. And you should realize that evolutionary theory provides no recourse for supporting such thinking.