I'm not exactly sure how gay marriage has anything to do with incest, but somehow, Jeremy Irons has attempted to link the two and said in an interview that same sex marriage could lead to incest between fathers and sons, fearing it will "debase" marital law. Huh? So, lets say that two women decide to get married. A father and son hear about this and then decide the world is coming to an end and end up having sex? His remark is so strange that gay and lesbian groups had no idea how to comment except to call them bizarre. If you are a gay rights group, you really don't want to respond because you will be saying something like, "Gay marriage will not lead to more father/son incest." Do you really want those in the same sentence for a Google search? Was there a lot of father/son incest previously? Maybe there was none previously and someone found one case and they blamed it on gay marriage? I guess it does not affect the mother/daughter incest rate?
Enty, he was commenting on how to avoid paying inheritance taxes.
ReplyDeleteand yes, he's nuts and I think he has driven his wife nuts.
DeleteThere are many ways to say that you are homophobic without saying outright, but this one takes the cake!
ReplyDeleteI read about this yesterday and I do loooove to hear the man talk in that sexy accent but this is truly a WTF moment here.
ReplyDeleteI watched that video of it the other day and was baffled. He's not right in the head.
ReplyDeleteHuh, because no fathers sexually abuse their children (male or female) now. Amirite?
ReplyDeleteNo what I think he meant was consensual incense not that it makes it any less icky and disturbing. Who in their right mind comes up with something like that? These anti-gay marriage folks come up with the craziest notions of what it means to love someone who.happens to be the same sex as u. That does not mean they want to have.sex with a child or relative. Its completely illogical
DeleteIs it wrong to say... Shut Up Old Man!
ReplyDeleteBecause that's the first thing I thought when I read this.
Wasn't his show about a family that had a bunch of sex with each other?
ReplyDeleteI think Jeremy Irons is so sexy, but I wish he wouldn't speak sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThis guy needs two finger up his butt.
ReplyDeleteYeah, he sounds crazy. If his point is that people will marry just for benefits, well...heterosexuals can do that already.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, he didn't mean that gay marriage would lead to fathers and sons having sex--just that what would stop them from being able to marry each other (in name only)? Is it still "incest" if they aren't having sex?
I saw this entire interview. He was on something. It was awful. I would definitely have to label him a slooooooow talker. It was brutal.
ReplyDeleteConsdiribg how a couple years he was defending pedifiles, I'm not going to take what he says seriously.
ReplyDeleteOh come on, he makes a very good point!
ReplyDelete"Fortunately in this battle, one rich voice has risen above the rest."
...I don't want to sound like I'm defending him because I think he's a crazy person. I didn't even watch the interview, just read a few excerpts from DListed.
ReplyDeleteI actually saw this interview. It was pretty clear that what he was trying to say is that gay marriage would be the basis for a father marrying his son to avoid inheritance taxes upon the father's death. Or something like that. In this instance I don't think he meant to say that the father and son would be having sex. They would use it as a tax strategy and their doing that is somehow the end of civilization as we know it.
ReplyDeleteStill bizarre.
"So thank you, Jeremy Irons, and please don't stop talking about the issues. Or do, I don't have strong feelings either way."
ReplyDeleteMontana, every time I hear his name I think of your story. Without exception.
ReplyDelete@Suzie P - there are already loads of laws on the books prohibiting marriage between relations of a certain degree. So rather than just being a homophobe he is also ignorant. Got it.
ReplyDeleteConfusing. What is the legal definition of relation? Because only one of two fathers can be a blood relative, right? Not trying to agree with him or anything.
DeleteHeavens to Betsy, Irons. Really?
ReplyDeleteGood fucking lord.
Just one more example of why most celebrities should keep their idiot rants to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think this is old thinking, linking same sex marriage, or homsexuality with incest, bestiality and pedaphilia. I correct alot of people on this: a pediphile may be gay, but not all gays are pediphiles. Takes time to erase old ways of thinking. But we can all do it together. As for itons, he may be off his nut.
ReplyDeleteauntliddy - Cleckley wrote Caricture of Love in the '80's explaining that homosexuality is not deviant sex in any way. This was well known years before this writing. Here we are in a new century fighting this same battle. It's time people become smarter than a 5th grader or just STFU.
DeleteDumbass
ReplyDelete1. I believe that the British tax laws are pretty rough and why many of its most famous and rich no longer reside there.
ReplyDelete2. WTF?
Why does anyone take what actors say seriously? Particularly when it comes to politics, sociology, or anything outside the very specific discipline of the theater?
ReplyDeleteJeremy Irons is highly trained in repeating other people's words in the most authentic and emotional manner possible. He is at the top of that field.
My guess is that he knows no more about politics than about giving a manicure or fixing a sink. Why should I give his opinions any more weight than my (excellent) plumber or (excellent) nail technician?
Nutty u so right. I always think that when i hear people freaking out about whatever actor said what.
Delete@nutty flavor: you don't listen to them? Why not? Almost all of them have *at least* an 8th grade education, and who among us can boast of that? Plus most of them are real pretty and therefore better than us in nearly all the ways.
DeleteA complete ass - the Michelle Shocked of acting. He needs to keep his mouth shut re: social issues - and lay off the booze.
ReplyDeleteI'd never heard your story, @Montana. What an asshole.
ReplyDelete@Montana- well in light of this news, I no longer find him sexy.
ReplyDeleteHe's an over-privileged twat.
ReplyDeleteFather can't marry their daughters to avoid estate taxes, so what does same sex marriage have to do with it?
I thought we don't have inheritance taxes anymore in the US.
ReplyDeleteHe is disgusting. He makes me mad I loved Brideshead Revisited so much.
ReplyDeleteSomehow my only exposure to Jeremy Irons was only The Lion King until recently (althoiugh I've been aware that he has quite a body of work.) so I find it funny when people think his voice is sexy as I really can only relate it to a camp lion.
ReplyDeleteHis comments are odd. Like he hasn't quite finished forming then (like mine above perhaps).
http://www.gossipcop.com/jeremy-irons-incest-gay-marriage-video-interview-huffpost-live-father-marry-son/
ReplyDeleteThis is the video I saw
What a ridiculous, ill informed and dangerously stupid thing to say.
ReplyDeleteHide behind taxes and money all you want but we all know what you meant.
Gay parents are actually able to control themselves you know.
Dude has balls for saying it considering the industry he's in.
ReplyDelete@Jamie2 and @Lucas already beat me to it. Plus, ugh at @Montana's story. EAT A BAG OF DICKS, IRONS.
ReplyDeleteSo wait, in other words he's telling us how he will avoid inheritance taxes.
ReplyDeleteAnd what prevents someone from marrying their daughter to avoid inheritance taxes? Oh yeah, he's a misogynist pig. Women probably aren't allowed to inherit anything in his narrow little 18th century world.
Thank you Seachica! What did he say about supporting pedophilia? I wish actors would keep their mouths closed about some things. Including those that I actually agree with. I watch a movie to be entertained. I don't like having the thought in the back of mind of what an asshole the actor really is, while watching it.
ReplyDeletemakes total sense after three hits of acid.
ReplyDeleteIdiot!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go out on a limb here and say that for someone to bring something like this up out of left field says to me that either he just thinks in a completely different out there way, or perhaps he had a relationship with his own Father or Son? Don't get all sniffy with me, I'm just wondering how in the hell he came up with that comment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEh, I'm guessing he's a bit cray cray, Anna. An asshole oddball.
ReplyDeleteSo Jeremy Irons is BSCI? Mental note taken.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely ironic (pun intended) that he would say this when I always thought he was gay. LOL.
@Montana, I guess this confirms that BI about a racist actor who doesn't work with black actors, he was a popular guess. Sorry you had to meet this asshole.
ReplyDeleteHow is this comment brave?? He works in an industry where even today actors are afraid to come out of the closet! I might give him points for being brave if he was in fashion! He's just a foolish old man who can't tolerate any one different from him.
ReplyDeleteHe would be brave to say it in front of me, as he would get a ruthless tongue lashing. Racists and homphobes I cannot tolerate. It is difficult for me to bite my tongue when it comes to certain things.
ReplyDeleteJeezus Entward, at least bother reading the interview before you comment on it. He was talking about how some fathers could possibly use gay marriage as a way to avoid paying inheritance taxes. I don't agree with him and I think it's a bit bizarre that his brain would go THERE, but your criticism doesn't even address what he actually said.
ReplyDeleteSorry you had to endure that Montana. I personally have never seen the huge draw with Jeremy Irons anyway. What are racist homophobic ass. Wouldn't be surprised if he was a Nazi is well.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't the person who RECEIVES the inheritance the one who pays the tax?
ReplyDeleteHope his son is more sane than him, he's definitely better looking. Because you know, in the scheme of things that's what matters the most.
ReplyDeleteI guess a man could marry another man. And the later could father a child with a woman via invitro and if the other man doesn't adopt the child I guess legally a messed up man could marry the child.
ReplyDelete"Is your ass jealous of the shit that comes out of your mouth?"
ReplyDeletePiece of minutiae for ya'll:
ReplyDeleteJeremy Irons was the first celebrity to wear a red ribbon to an awards ceremony, as the host of the 1991 Tonys.
Regarding his remarks... have you seen his son? Talk about projection ;)
@Wendy - spouses don't have to pay inheritance taxes, but children do. So he's suggesting that a son could marry his dad, and then - when his dad dies - he wouldn't owe inheritance taxes because he's a spouse not a son.
ReplyDeleteI *hate* that I understand this piece of shit's weird thinking.
Correct. You and Snapdragon below said what is was getting at (but better obviously). :)
DeleteBut it's not even legal now, is it, to marry your (opposite-sex) child, so... WTF? Craptastic reasoning skills there, Irons.
ReplyDeleteDamn, dude, I thought you were the one who dosed Sunny with the insulin, and not vice versa!
ReplyDeleteI just can't figure out how his mind went there to begin with--there are definitely laws in the UK and the US forbidding marriage between people within certain degrees of kinship, and parents/children definitely fall into those categories. Just because unrelated same-sex couples can get married doesn't mean that the incest laws will go BOOM as well... *shakes head*
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Do you really want those in the same sentence for a Google search?" - Enty
ReplyDeleteYou're worried about nasty or slanderous things ending up in Google searches? You should reconsider the entire theme of your site then.
@Michael: He's not gay, he's British!
ReplyDeleteOh... Jeremy. That was bizarre
ReplyDeleteTo be a devil's advocate and as a thought experiment, why should incestuous marriage be banned if it's between two consenting adults who love each other? Most people bring up the issue of genetic inbreeding, but as a society, we don't ban disabled people, or people with hereditary disease from having children; moreover, even if that were the case, what if they desired to not have children, but simply to live in the open as a couple?
ReplyDeleteNow you and I may find it viscerally disturbing and gross, but by logic, with what justification of harm being done can we prevent two consenting adults related to each other from a forming a legal and sexual relationship?
The argument is even stronger with polygamous and polyandrous marriage.
It doesn't, however, work for pedophilia or bestiality, due to the issue of adult consent.
I heard about this on the radio, and the dj brought up that to his knowledge incest laws were written so a child could not be born out of an incestious relationship. Therefore, a relationship between a father and son could be legal so they could avoid the tax, and also for insurance benefits as a spouse. I plugged in my iPod after that cause it was just ridiculous where some people were going with it, so I don't know if they figured out the legalities or not.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Spike Gomes-
ReplyDeleteI brought up a similar point a few months back, and the Usual Suspects here jumped my shiznit. I'm not a fan of Slippery Slope arguments, but as I've pointed out before, some shit DOES lead to other shit. In the case of redefining what "marriage" is (not just "man and woman" but now also "man and man" and "woman and woman") we WILL, eventually, have do deal with the ramifications of us wanting to have our cake and eat it too. We can't be willing to change the definition of ONE word (marriage) without opening the door to the changing of definitions of OTHER words. One day, quite soon, in a generation or so, we could very well have incestophiles clamoring for their rights, since, yes, as you point out (and I did too, months ago here) incest between consenting adults, in theory, harms no one (of course, in reality, it harms EVERYONE, the very fabric of society and what civilization is all about. As does, well, never mind...) One day we may see brothers wedding their sisters, sons marrying their divorced or widows moms, and daughters marrying their divorced or widowed fathers. We may also see the zoophiles and necrophiles and pedophiles petitioning for rights one day soon, as well. The only thing making a pedophile a pedophile IS the law, if you think about it. If the age of consent were lowered to 15 or 13 or 12 (when, again technically, menarche is reached by most girls) then pedophiles could have a field-day. Actually, in MY mind, heterosexual sex being permitted at the age of menarche /puberty makes a HELLUVA lot more sense than does same-sex marriage (from an evolutionary perspective, that is.) When sex is used in the way and for the purpose it was intended, that is (and not in an obsessive/compulsive, pointless and ultimately demeaning way, as it is now, that is)
I get so sick of people that believe legalizing gay marriage would open the floodgates to people marrying 5-year-old kids, their own children, dogs, lawnmowers and a hole in the ground.
ReplyDeleteYou already can't marry your adult children. A little kid can't legally consent; neither can an animal or an object.
The ones that throw up "but they can use it to get benefits in sham marriages." also suck. Uhh, then why aren't they complaining about the heterosexual marriages that already do that?
Example # 897,642,435 of why celebrities should keep their mouths shut about politics.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it in the pursuit of equal rights for human kind do people search for the most idiotic and sickest possible scenarios to incite fear mongering? The fight for a persons right to die with dignity does the same thing. Just stop. The fact that a groom named Tom wants to marry a bride named Harry isn't going to mean we live in a lawless society. It means that couples who love one another can get married--legally and gain benefits that are long past due to them. Stop with the crap stuff. And I could have sworn Jeremy Irons is gay. It must be his tightly wound English anality that pinged my 'dar,
ReplyDelete@Thomas and Spike Gnomes:
ReplyDeleteCurrently, marriage functions to create a legal relationship between two consenting adults where no such relationship formally existed. Over a 1,000 legal rights are automatically conferred upon marriage. The legal rights don't, and shouldn't hinge on the sex of people engaging in the contract. The rights work the exact same way whether the two people are both male, both female, or of opposite gender. There is absolutely no good legal argument that suggest otherwise.
Family members already have a legally defined relationship, one that cannot be superseded by another type of legal relationship (marriage).
Polygamy doesn't work because having more than two people in the contract effectively renders that contract pointless. If I can marry as many people as I want, and each of those people can marry as many people as *they* want - well, pretty soon there's dozens or hundreds or thousands of people in that "marriage," and it's become meaningless. Who gets survivor benefits? They can't go to everyone. Who gets power of attorney if a spouse gets sick? Hundreds of people can't make those decisions together. It doesn't work.
So, no, there is no "slippery slope." Gay marriage doesn't change anything. A marriage between two people of the same sex functions in the *exact same way* a marriage between an opposite sex couple does. Nothing would be redefined in a legal sense.
Just wanted to add: Thomas, you are WAAAYYY to caught up in who's boinking who. Marriage isn't about sex. It's about creating a legal relationship between two people. A valid, legal marriage exists even if the people aren't having sex. And plenty of people have sex outside of marriage. It isn't the sex that creates a marriage.
ReplyDeleteA dead person can't consent to a contract. An animal can't consent to a contract. A minor can't consent to a contract. It's not about the sex, (who's having it, who's not, how old is old enough for it, etc) it's about (I'll say it again) consenting to a contract.
For those of you who jumped Jeremy Irons (and myself) months ago, here's a concrete, real-world example of what he was speculating might one day occur:
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/gay-man-adopts-partner-avoid-inheritance-tax/story?id=19512067#.Uc4Kw9hs6fU