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?— Josh Thomson (@THEREALPUNK) June 11, 2013
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?
At this point, I am going to stop and say two important things that I want you to think over in your head before commenting on the article:
First, I know a segment of readers will wonder "why is this news?" And it's news because a highly ranked fighter in the UFC said it. Also because...let's just be honest for a second. The UFC doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to fighters (and executives) and the LGBT community. Be it Dana White calling an anonymous source a "faggot," fighters using that same word with regularity and without remorse (see Diaz, Nathan) or Matt Mitrione's bizarre tirade in which he called transgender fighter Fallon Fox a "disgusting freak" while attributing his own bizarre motivations to her fighting career (she is a man who wants to beat up women because she is a sociopath, you see?).
The regularity of these instances has given movements like the ridiculous Culinary Union lent "Unfit for Children" campaign far too much legitimate ammo. Thomson's statements may simply be the ignorant ramblings of someone who watches too much Fox News, but combined with the unfortunate regularity of the other instances it paints an ugly picture. Fair or unfair, that's simply how it is.
Second, I'm writing about this because it's my job to have an opinion about things said and done in the world of mixed martial arts. So anything said here is simply my opinion. It is not the opinion of Bloody Elbow as a whole or anything more than my response to Thomson's nonsensical line of questioning.
Thomson's line of thinking is off in several areas:
- We can throw "adults marrying children" and "marrying animals" right out of the discussion. Children and animals are not consenting adult humans. So yes, there is a pretty clear line that can be drawn there. And, while Thomson stated in his Facebook posts at one point that he "wasn't comparing homosexuals to animals and children" he actually is. When you create a line of logic that says gay marriage has some similarity on a moral level to pedophilia, bestiality and incest, that is exactly what you're doing.
- There are some valid lines of thinking that polygamy should be legalized based on the fact that the government shouldn't regulate marriage. Again, the consenting adult card could be played here. And, it's worth remembering that much of the initial decision to outlaw the practice was based on nothing more than moral objections. However, there are some issues with the practice that complicate the 'should it be legalized?' discussion. Such as the fact that in most cases the societies which embrace the practice actually only embrace polygyny (one man, multiple wives) and not the reverse. Or they allow for restrictions on who can marry, in many communities restricting the ability to marry to "high status" individuals while lower status individuals are not allowed to marry. There's also the fact that, in many cases, the polygamy results in men marrying underage girls. But, there is still some valid lines of thinking to allowing consenting adults to engage in a "multiple marriage."
Pat Miletich joined the party on Thomson's Facebook as well -- though it appears now to have been deleted it was captured by other sites including Bleacher Report -- adding a bit more wood to the ignorance bonfire:
Josh is spot on. It may seem extreme to use some of his examples of 'where does it end' but I guarantee someone will want to marry their 1st cousin or even sibling. At what point does lack of civil liberty put this nation at risk? It's already happened and will only get worse.
If someone wants to marry their first cousin, he or she is legally allowed to in almost half of the states in America. So, if they really want to pursue such a life, they have plenty of states to move to.
There are larger ethical concerns with sibling marriage. One of the largest -- and this is at play with first cousins as well -- being genetic diseases. I'm not a smart enough man to explain it all, but Eccentric Scientist explained a lot about the probability of genetic issues while also pointing out the availability of genetic screening. One large issue with sibling marriage is that a sexual bond formed between siblings would seem highly likely to have developed in an abusive household.
There are major concerns with such types of incestuous relationships that need far more investigation to understand, let alone make legal determinations on.
Those concerns simply do not exist with "gay marriage." To argue that they do is purely ignorant.
But I also wonder what Miletich is referring to with a lack of civil liberties putting the nation at risk. Suggesting that civil liberties are under attack because you think rights should be restricted is a little...ass backwards.
Pretty funny coming from a guy who claimed to be thinking about running for office while stating that the government was getting too involved with individual rights.