twitter google

Josh Thomson shares some deep thoughts on marriage equality

Josh Thomson shares some deep thoughts on marriage equality

Hey everyone, let’s laugh at the bigot! Josh Thomson started a conversation on his Facebook page regarding gay marriage and came across sounding quite enlightened:

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

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.

I’m not talking about just gay marriage. I’m talking about where does it stop? Where do you draw the line? People wanna marry animals, children, siblings, multiple husband/wives, etc?

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?

Look, I personally don’t give a shit who you marry but my question to you is, why is it okay for gays to marry and your gonna turn around and tell the guy he can’t marry the lil girl next door or the teacher she cant marry the lil boy in her class? Siblings, animals, etc. Why can’t they be happy like gay people an heterosexual people?

I’m not against gay marriage, I’m also not for it. I don’t care! I do care what it may lead to In the future once you change the definition of marriage for gay marriage. You can’t say that it doesn’t open the door way for other topics like I mentioned. I know it sounds crazy but people will bring these types of issues to the table once the definition is changed.

Ah yes, if gay marriage is allowed then why not woman on baby or man on pig marriage? Important philosophical questions from Josh Thomson.

  • frickshun

    Dumb fucking argument. There are laws against marrying minors b/c they aren’t mature enough to make that decision (hence all the LAWS). And animals can’t speak for themselves. If they could, I wouldn’t mind a little man on horse love for those than enjoy such things.

  • mobius

    He’s right about 2 things: it’s crazy and (in the uk, at least) people, crazy people, have brought up similarly crazy arguments.

    Is it a myth that somewhere in the US it’s legal to marry a horse?

  • Zen

    His polygamy argument does have merit..

  • KravMagoo

    Where is this underground dogfukker agenda? Do they have a facebook page. I guess what I’m saying, Josh, is…. are there others like us?

    Power to the PIGBUGGERERS!

  • agentsmith

    Zen is correct, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, there’s really no good argument against polygamy.

    The rest is your typical “slippery slope” bigotry. Gay marriage != pedophilia, incest, or bestiality, and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot, plain and simple.

  • the_beast

    I appreciate everyone being fairly civil on the topic. Its good to know people can have discussions, not arguments. Personally I really don’t care whom you pork. Who you bugger on your own time in your own home is your own business. But as a person who is religious and enjoys watching sweaty men roll around and beat each other to a pulp, I do have an issue with gay marriage. What happens when some gay people decide they want to get married in a church, but the church decides they don’t agree with the lifestyle and say no? Are they sued, labeled bigots, and forced to perform the ceremony or be shut down? Don’t tell me that it wont happen, because I guarantee it will.

  • Shawn

    You don’t have to get married in a church, im sure someone would marry them who believes in consenting adults rights.

  • the_beast


    That’s not the point. I understand that when it passes that they can get married outside a church. The point is when they go to, for example, a Catholic church and say we want to get married here, and the church says no. What then? And it will happen. How will it get handled? Do we then force churches to go against their beliefs, or do we allow them to discriminate? Because that is how it will be labeled, the churches are bigots and are breaking the law by discriminating. Its happening right now with Catholics and birth control, they are getting their pants sued off because the government is mandating that they provide birth control for women and they don’t agree with it. What happens when a gay couple forces the issue?

  • glassjawsh

    ^ok, if you can go full dingbat, so can I. What happens if a group or sect believes in hatred and oppression? are we then forced to compromise what we as a society know is right just to cater to their beliefs?

    ohhhhhhhh shit that right, we TOTALLY already do that with the catholic church.

    I know it’s scary but it;s called progress

    get over it choir boy

  • glassjawsh

    listen, I’m glad you and other christians like a book. It’s GREAT that you’re into reading. hell, im a public librarian so it’s kind of my job to make sure people are into the written word.

    but, imagine for a second if I went to the white house and said, “HEEEEY president Obama, I’m totally into the green latern comic book, I WANT A GREEN RING OF POWER FOR ME AND EVERYONE BECAUSE IF IT’S IN THIS BOOK I LIKE IT SHOULD BE A REALITY!!!”

    I’d immediately be ejected from the premises and everyone would agree that I deserved a thorough psychiatric evaluation.

    you (and all other religious dingbats) trying to force your stupid beliefs on the rest of thelworld is no different.

    and if your rebuttal includes the phrase “but Jesus…” at any point, just save yourself the effort.

    Have a blessed day =)

  • agentsmith

    No one’s going to force churches to perform same-sex marriages, that’s not even part of the debate. Churches always have the right to refuse.

  • The_beast

    Woah there, slow down. Just to let you know I’m not even Catholic, it’s just an example as they are currently being mandated by the government to go against their religious beliefs. And yes I do propose that we are to compromise as a society, there are tons of idiots out there that I don’t agree with, KKK, neo-nazi groups for example, the guys are damn fools, but you better believe I think they have the right to believe any damn fool thing they want to. It’s the actions that should get regulated. And that is why this is an interesting thought experiment. Where does the regulation of action by the government end? I wish I could believe Agentsmith, that it will never become an issue. Maybe it’s just the tinfoil hat in me that proposes the scenario, but I do think it will come up. And it will be interesting to see how far we as a society define religious freedom in the modern age. Or do we all rail against it like glassjawsh and get overly angry at the thought of someone else believing in something we feel is antiquated?

  • AcadianBacon

    Butt Jesus….

  • agentsmith

    Really, they shouldn’t be allowed to refuse gay marriages, because you can easily equate it to refusing to allow interracial marriages. But I figure anything that makes churches less relevant to modern society is a good thing in the long run.