Nate Marquardt is defying the image of MMA fighters.

MMA fighters pride themselves on the ability to withstand anything an opponent throws at them without submitting. Every athlete in the sport knows they’ll be enduring a never-ending series of roundhouse kicks, guillotine chokeholds, spinning elbows and superman punches.

For former UFC middleweight Marquardt, however, there is one move that apparently makes him tap out instantly: two men expressing love for one another.

Last Saturday evening, Marquardt was watching UFC Fight Night 219 on ESPN+ and during one of the breaks in the action, he saw a commercial featuring a gay couple.

Rather than reacting to the ad like most rational viewers and doing nothing at all, he decided instead to log onto social media and tweet this gem:

Yes, Marquardt was so disturbed by two men kissing that he forced his kids to look away from an otherwise family-friendly evening of watching his colleagues taking neck cranks and flying knees to the face.

Perhaps he wouldn’t object to two men showing affection if we renamed the act like a UFC submission move. So from now on in the Marquardt household, gay kisses shall be known as “reverse rear naked lip locks.”

Also, what kind of MMA fighter uses the hashtag “#barf?” Does one TV gay kiss instantly turn testosterone-pumping dudebros into 1980s valley girls? If so, why have we waited so long to unleash this power on the universe?

According to USA Today’s UFC news site MMA Junkie, Marquardt “has been outspoken about his Christian beliefs during his career.” He didn’t let up after his initial tweet sparked outrage either, digging the hole even deeper with a series of anti-gay follow-ups, most of which aren’t worth dignifying by reposting them here.

But in the midst of his homophobic vitriol binge (over a single kiss that lasted one second at most), Marquardt proclaimed, “They are all disgusting sin worthy of death [sic]. That’s why people need Jesus’ death on the cross to save them.”

Ye gods. This post violated even Twitter’s standards and was subsequently deleted. Perhaps Marquardt could enlighten us as to what part of The Bible endorses that kind of death threat.

Or maybe he can spend some time thinking about why he selectively endorses the parts of the Bible that demonize homosexuality while simultaneously skipping over the parts that condemn punching another human being into unconsciousness.

That kind of logic would make anyone #barf.

Don't forget to share: