Josh Thomson says the legalization of gay marriage 'opens a gateway' to pedophilia, incest

Discussion in 'General MMA discussion' started by Galgorian, Jun 13, 2013.

  1. Galgorian Well-Known Member's Morning Report:

    Josh Thomson has never been one to shy away from expressing his opinion on socially divisive views. The thing is, as both a public figure and professional athlete, as well as an employee of a tremendously image-conscious brand, that directness can only stretch so far.
    Like Nate Diaz and Matt Mitrione before him, Thomson said something he probably shouldn't have on social media. After posing a question, unprovoked, about whether or not humans should be allowed to "marry whoever they want," Thomson subsequently stated that legalizing gay marriage "opens a gateway" for both pedophilia and incest. He later went on to equate the situation to bestiality, as well.

    Here's one of his quotes from Facebook.

    Thomson is currently the No. 5 ranked lightweight fighter in the UFC, an organization that has had more than its fair share of troubles with the LGBT community. So unfortunately, whether he likes it or not, his words carry significant weight.
    Bloody Elbow's Brent Brookhouse broke down the situation far more eloquently than I, but after everything that's happened over the past few months, one fact is simple: no positive outcome could result from making such a polarizing declaration. So why, I must ask, do we continue to have this conversation in mixed martial arts, when similar occurrences are so few and far between in other professional sports?
  2. 7time Well-Known Member

    Not too crazy of a point I guess. If you have to allow a man and a man to marry so they can be happy, how can u stop a brother and sister from marrying each other to be happy ?

    I don't agree with Josh, but I can see what he is saying. It's retarded, but I can see it.
  3. Troop Active Member

    I need to see the interview because how and why would this even come up in an interview regarding MMA? Agree or disagree with what he says or what's in the media, why don't athletes just say "I'd rather not answer that since people may disagree or take my opinions out of context' and move on to the next question.

    I was going to post this thread up but I said F it, Because its causing wars over in the UG
  5. Spud Well-Known Member

    It wasn't an interview, it started with a tweet then he posted the longer comment on Facebook. He said this all of his own choosing.

    I have to disagree with 7time, there's a huge difference between 2 people of the same sex being in love & marrying and siblings marrying.

    Here's another quote from Thomson

  6. JonnyRico Well-Known Member

    I agree with 7time also
    MoJoJo likes this.
  7. Gnarcore Well-Known Member

    'Smart' is not the right word to use if you actually think that gay marriage will directly correlate to the above situations. People have been or wanting to do that for already long before gay marriage. Hell a branch of Christianity with a whole new testament was created just for polygamists.
  8. Gnarcore Well-Known Member

    One of which won't likely produce retarded offspring.....
    abc0331 likes this.
  9. 7time Well-Known Member

    I get that. But where and how do you draw the line regarding people's personal right to happiness ? Thomson would've been better off never saying anything but that's not who he is.

    This Video Posted by PychoIcon awhile back is pretty relevant to this thread
    Spidy likes this.
  11. Gnarcore Well-Known Member

    I don't know the answer to that but people have been wanting to do all the things he listed long before gay marriage was legal and just because it is legal I don't think directly affects those issues.
    Spidy and abc0331 like this.
  12. osubuckeye4 Well-Known Member

    Gay marriage and incestual marriage are totally different things.

    Allowing two men or two women to marry is simply a social stigma that has been created over time. The allowance of the action carries no risk/danger to society as a whole.

    Allowing two siblings to marry/copulate carries all kinds of negative genetic consequences. Ditto with beastiality, all kinds of crazy diseases are formed when different animals start having sexual contact with each other.

    I buy the slippery slope arguement in some cases, but it's not applicable here in the way that Thomson is suggesting.

    As far as pedophilia, maybe he has an argument there...
    abc0331 likes this.
  13. 7time Well-Known Member

    I agree with you and I'm all for people being happy with each other regardless of sexual orientation.
  14. TheCompany Well-Known Member

    Such a bulls--- argument.
    Spidy and abc0331 like this.
  15. mmablaster Well-Known Member

    A line can be drawn and is drawn. It isn't a slippery slope and won't open a gateway for anything other than of age gay couples getting married. Hopefully for the economy, they throw large wedding ceremonies.

    There are quite a few states right now that have it legal to marry a 1st cousin. Now that is insane.
    osubuckeye4 likes this.
  16. 7time Well-Known Member

    Allowing two sibling to marry doesn't mean they are going to conceive a child. I'm not disagreeing with what your saying in general but if a brother and sister/ cousin/relative want to marry/ practice safe sex and adopt a child who's to say they shouldn't be allowed to ?
  17. Spud Well-Known Member

    The issue about gay marriage isn't simply about happiness, it's about equality.
  18. demeter Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure that part of his argument holds any water either, how would legalizing marriage between two consenting adults open up the possibility of relationships between parties who legally cannot give their consent?
    Spidy and newERA like this.
  19. 7time Well-Known Member

    So simply exchange happiness for equality in my post.
  20. osubuckeye4 Well-Known Member

    If laws could be crafted in that hyperspecific of a way, I'd have no problem with that.

    Example: If the government wanted to pass a law that siblings could wed, but only if they were both "fixed"... sure, I don't care. I personally would think it's gross and there are no family members that I'd call up to ask out on a date, but wheatever.

    You're not going to see that happen though.

    Then again, if you did... who would really care? If you don't like it, just avoid those people.

    If anything, I would almost support it because it would help me more easily identify who the freaks are. All someone would have to do is say, "this is my wife, we grew up together, she's my older sister" and I'd say, "great, I'm gonna go over there... please don't follow me".

    But yea, you're never going to see a general, "siblings can wed" law... because of the negative health risks for children that could be born from the result of that marriage. That is why incest in a non-marriage fashion is illegal. It's a law that makes sense, why change it?

Share This Page