Josh Thomson says dumb stuff about Gay Marriage - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
UFC The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is a U.S.-based mixed martial arts organization, recognized as the largest MMA promotion in the world. The UFC is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada and is owned and operated by Zuffa, LLC. This promotion is responsible for solidifying the sport's postion in the history-books. UFC is currently undergoing a remarkable surge in popularity, along with greater mainstream media coverage. UFC programming can now be seen on FOX, FX, and FUEL TV in the United States, as well as in 35 other countries worldwide.

Reply

Old 06-13-2013, 10:17 PM   #1 (permalink)
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
 
CupCake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,993
Blog Entries: 13
CupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is Untouchable
Josh Thomson says dumb stuff about Gay Marriage

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/6/12...ophilia-incest

Quote:
Josh Thomson has spent his career being a thrilling competitor from bell to bell. His fights with Gilbert Melendez are among the most entertaining bouts you're likely to see and his knockout win over Nate Diaz in his return to the UFC was a reminder of how brilliant he can be when "on his game."

Thomson also has a nasty habit of trying to "push the envelope" at times on social media. And that happened again today when he tweeted out the following:

"Should you be allowed to marry whoever you want? Before you answer that, should u be allowed to have more than 1 wife?"

Of course, things couldn't stop there. As fans got a little heated over his "logic," Thomson took it further on his Facebook, stating:

"My next question is, should siblings be allowed to marry siblings? My point is, where do you draw the line? I personally don't care who you marry but I also am smart enough to know that it opens a gateway to men/women trying to marry young kids, siblings marrying eachother and people having multiple husbands an wives. You have to think all of these things are okay otherwise your stopping them from being happy as well which is hypocrisy. Equality doesn't stop with gay marriage, it just starts with it."

He continued when someone brought up interracial marriage, stating that it was "nothing like this" and then, again, bringing up adults marrying children:

"Blacks an whites getting married is nothing like this. So your okay with R. Kelly trying To marry lil girls? People trying to marry their brother or sister? Animals? Etc? Those people want the same exact thing, to be happy. Are you gonna tell them no?"
And then the Press Release defending the comments:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/6/13...e-gay-marriage

Quote:
June 13, 2013 - Yesterday top UFC lightweight contender Josh Thomson used social media to poll fans with what turned out to be a controversial and thought provoking topic.

The subject of gay rights, including gay marriage, is sensitive for many people and Mr. Thomson fully supports equality for all human beings.
The statements made by Mr. Thomson were intended to provoke thought on some of the bigger issues that come up when people start to fight not only for equality but for more off-the-wall rights often frowned upon by society.

"I am not against gay rights or gay marriage in anyway," stated Thomson. "My comments were completely taken out of context by some members of the media and I have since removed them out of respect for anyone who may have been offended. It was not my intention to offend or hurt anyone."
With organizations fighting for legalized polygamy and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (http://NAMBLA.ORG) fighting for rights of their own, the line between equality and controversy becomes very thin. Mr. Thomson was merely giving extreme examples of very real movements in our country but he in no way meant to isolate the gay community in a negative manner.
What a dick!
__________________

CupCake is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 06-13-2013, 10:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
The Chosen One

 
Cookie Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada's East Coast
Posts: 1,472
Blog Entries: 5
Cookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings SystemCookie Monster Is Beyond A Rankings System
Damn, I like him as a fighter, but he needs some serious PR advice.

Sent from Verticalsports.com App
__________________
The poster formerly known as Cowgirl


Thanks to Killz for the great sig!

Cookie Monster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 10:33 PM   #3 (permalink)
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
 
CupCake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,993
Blog Entries: 13
CupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is UntouchableCupCake Is Untouchable
I agree Cowgirl, he needs PR help bad, hated Diaz for the "***got" debacle, glad Josh smashed him, but he's gone way low in my estimation as a person after this shit.
__________________

CupCake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 10:43 PM   #4 (permalink)
M.C
-AUTHORITAH-
 
M.C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 9,557
M.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the system
Hmm, I have two thought processes on gay marriage (pertaining to this topic at least).

1. I personally have nothing against gay marriage and in the same vein, I have no problem whatsoever with multiple wives/husbands. If you are going to enter a ridiculous contract like marriage, then anyone should be able to do it with as many people as they want. I find the whole thing pointless and nonsensical, but to those who want to do it there should not be restrictions except for common sense terms (animal marriage for example).

2. His thought process is not exactly wrong. For example look at gun control, the SOPA bill, and other things that are continuously voted against not necessarily because it is DIRECTLY damaging, but mostly because it opens a gateway into new laws in the future, it is a line crosser that opens up voting for other restrictions/changes that would never have happened, potentially bad ones.

I do not agree with him on this subject because I believe limitations for certain groups of people to be wrong (in most cases), and if 4 guys want to marry 2 women I really couldn't care less, or if two gay want to or whatever, I simply don't care, it's your life do what you want with it so long as you are not imposing on others. However, his logic and thinking is not "wrong" in a general sense, yes passing a law like this DOES open up more groups of people to want their marrige rights to be included, and yes it MIGHT make groups of people/relationships who otherwise would never ever be allowed to marry, step up and start making this same drive towards equality. Many people seem to not enjoy this idea, why I do not know, but they do.

Secular gay marriage (if you demand legal church weddings then you are imposing on other people's religious belief/system, you are no better than those demanding on your rights) should be perfectly legal for anybody of any quantity that wishes to do so, but his logic is not necessarily incorrect in that yes it will and would open up doors in the future for more groups that people probably find strange/odd/whatever to want their piece of the pie.

Nothing is ever black and white and even though it sounds stupid, not everyone who is against gay marraige is "anti gay" or hates gay people or are homophobic in any way, many of them realistically do not agree with ANY change in marriage, be it gay or otherwise, and I think that is where he is coming from, to which I say... that is your opinion, sir.
__________________



Click Images Above
M.C is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 11:15 PM   #5 (permalink)
I Finish Threads
 
HexRei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,231
HexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By AllHexRei Is Beloved By All
Thing is, polygyny/gamy is really the only major issue that could become a slippery slope by his logic. Animals and children are already clearly differentiated in that they are not adult humans and cannot consent.

I suppose marriage between close relatives might be reconsidered but once again, there is a nonconsenting victim here: the offspring with a significantly increased chance of inbred defects. And that chance goes up rapidly with subsequent generations of inbreeding.

Regarding polygamy/gyny, I don't have a moral problem with either (although many do and I'm sure that's a big factor in its illegality) but it would create some big problems since a lot of the rights and benefits systems built around marriages assume only one partner. They would have to be heavily overhauled in order to accomodate these wildly different situations, whereas switching the gender of one partner so that they are the same doesn't really change much from that standpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugar-Free_LizaG View Post
I agree Cowgirl, he needs PR help bad, hated Diaz for the "***got" debacle, glad Josh smashed him, but he's gone way low in my estimation as a person after this shit.
Although, despite Nate's terrible wording, I don't think he actually has anything against gay people (or gives a shit if they get married for that matter). He uses the word out of habit, it seems like, and I don't think he cares much at all. Whereas Josh seems to have put some thought into rationalizing his abject bigotry.
__________________
His helmet was stifling, it narrowed his vision. And he must see far. His shield was heavy. It threw him off balance. And his target is far away.
HexRei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 11:40 PM   #6 (permalink)
Welterweight
 
Joabbuac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,190
Joabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of KnowledgeJoabbuac Is True Champion Of Knowledge
He went too far with it, the comparisons were just out of line. I don't even agree with gay marriage (More in a "its there thing, let the christians decide")

I also dont really like gay christians either... I think if your relgion has historically shunned who you are, instead of trying to change the religion itself or even worse try to change who you are, how about not supporting the religion in the first place?

I agree with having the same rights, i also think non christian straight couples should have an equal way to join without it being a marriage.

But it does not in no way lead to allowing incestual marriage or bigamy that is just silly.
Joabbuac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 11:53 PM   #7 (permalink)
Heavyweight
 
AlphaDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,789
AlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By AllAlphaDawg Is Beloved By All
How did anyone manage to get offended by this? He thinks gay marriage will lead to more kinds down the road and was hoping to start a debate about it. So what? He didn't insult the gays nor did he insult anyone who is for gay marriage. He just doesn't agree with your views. Get over it.

Shit like this is considered news now and worth writing an article about. What a joke.

EDIT: Noticed he didn't apologize, nor should he. He shouldn't try to appease people simply because they're overly sensitive.
__________________
AlphaDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 12:03 AM   #8 (permalink)
M.C
-AUTHORITAH-
 
M.C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 9,557
M.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the systemM.C has cheated the system
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joabbuac View Post
He went too far with it, the comparisons were just out of line. I don't even agree with gay marriage (More in a "its there thing, let the christians decide")

I also dont really like gay christians either... I think if your relgion has historically shunned who you are, instead of trying to change the religion itself or even worse try to change who you are, how about not supporting the religion in the first place?

I agree with having the same rights, i also think non christian straight couples should have an equal way to join without it being a marriage.

But it does not in no way lead to allowing incestual marriage or bigamy that is just silly.
Marriage has nothing to do with Christianity. You can add Christianity to your marriage if you choose to, but people from all religions (and non-religion) get married. Christianity has nothing to do with marriage on a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HexRei View Post
Thing is, polygyny/gamy is really the only major issue that could become a slippery slope by his logic. Animals and children are already clearly differentiated in that they are not adult humans and cannot consent.

I suppose marriage between close relatives might be reconsidered but once again, there is a nonconsenting victim here: the offspring with a significantly increased chance of inbred defects. And that chance goes up rapidly with subsequent generations of inbreeding.

Regarding polygamy/gyny, I don't have a moral problem with either (although many do and I'm sure that's a big factor in its illegality) but it would create some big problems since a lot of the rights and benefits systems built around marriages assume only one partner. They would have to be heavily overhauled in order to accomodate these wildly different situations, whereas switching the gender of one partner so that they are the same doesn't really change much from that standpoint.

Although, despite Nate's terrible wording, I don't think he actually has anything against gay people (or gives a shit if they get married for that matter). He uses the word out of habit, it seems like, and I don't think he cares much at all. Whereas Josh seems to have put some thought into rationalizing his abject bigotry.
I agree that the most likely scenario is polygamy/close relative would show up rather than children/animal, and probably those alone if you think logically/reasonably.

However, you are talking about America here. You can't sneeze in a public place without someone thinking you are hurting their feelings or being intolerant. Who knows what kind of laws could be passed here someday in the future because of, for a lack of a better term "pussification", running rampant through this country.
__________________



Click Images Above
M.C is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 12:03 AM   #9 (permalink)
Featherweight
 
Iuanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,133
Iuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of KnowledgeIuanes Is True Champion Of Knowledge
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.C View Post
Hmm, I have two thought processes on gay marriage (pertaining to this topic at least).


2. His thought process is not exactly wrong. For example look at gun control, the SOPA bill, and other things that are continuously voted against not necessarily because it is DIRECTLY damaging, but mostly because it opens a gateway into new laws in the future, it is a line crosser that opens up voting for other restrictions/changes that would never have happened, potentially bad ones.

It sort of is because its classic slippery slope argument for something that has qualitative limits, by which I mean, a union joining 2 or more rational beings under the eyes of the state. Under this I might include polygamy and even incest. It's easy to exclude ridiculous things such as child marriage or marrying an animal cause it does not fit this, I think, very obvious criterium.

The possibly of polygamy does have its risks in that in practice it often includes a situational or psychological coercion of a man to very young women. But there's no reason it can't be looked at in a case by case basis.

I suppose incestual marriages could be seen as posing a risk in terms of a suffering child, but marriage does not equal sex or procreation. There is the chance that incestous marriage would open the door to siblings getting married simply to get benefits from the system.

Which of course brings us to the point of marriage under the state as being a valid institution at all, versus perhaps organizing certain rights and privileges individually rather than as some package part of a sanctioned relationship.

The government, optimally, should be simply be a guarantor and overseer of civil contracts entered into by rational actors WITHOUT any special benefits given by the government for being in said contracts and relations. Under such a circumstance, for example, a brother and sister could be in a contract arranging some sort financial conditions and agreements without the tint of 'marriage', incest and exploiting the system for benefits.
Iuanes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 12:06 AM   #10 (permalink)
All Around Nice Guy
 
SideWays222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,316
SideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings SystemSideWays222 Is Beyond A Rankings System
I know what he is getting at and he is not insulting anyone. But his thought process is a bit stupid imo. Whether its hypocrisy or whatever i think there is an obvious difference between trying to marry a child or animal and marrying same sex. I dont believe that anyone thinks otherwise except for sick people that maybe WOULD actually like to marry children or pets.
__________________


2014 FFL

Robbie Lawler

Daniel Cormier
Rory Macdonald
Alan Patrick
Stephen Thompson
SideWays222 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios