Jeremy Irons worries gay marriage will lead to fathers marrying their sons

Jeremy Irons has a surprising history of making absolutely bonkers statements. He has bizarre opinions about sexual harassment, pedophilia, statutory rape and now marriage. Well, I think Irons has always had some abnormal ideas about marriage in general, but when he was asked about gay marriage specifically during a HuffPo interview, Irons went Full Santorum. Jeremy Irons thinks that gay marriage will lead to fathers gay-marrying their sons for tax purposes, and because of sex too because it’s not incest if it’s between dudes (according to Jeremy Irons). Here’s the transcript, courtesy of Dlisted:

Jeremy: Well, I don’t know… It’s a very interesting one, that, and I don’t really have a strong feeling, but I see that… What we had in England, which was not marriage, but it was a union you could make if you were gay and wanted to make a civil partnership.

Josh: Yes, civil union sort of has the same rights as marriage, but not the name.

Jeremy: That’s right. Same rights, not the name. It seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name and I worry that it means somehow we debase or we change what marriage is. I just worry about that. I mean, tax-wise is an interesting one, because could a father not marry his son?

Josh: Um, well there are laws against incest.

Jeremy: It’s not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us against inbreeding, but men don’t breed, so incest wouldn’t cover that. Now if that was so, then if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him.

Josh: No, that sounds like a total red herring. I’m sure that incest law would still cover same-sex marriages.

Jeremy: Really, why?

Josh: Because I don’t think that incest law is only justified on the basis of the consequences of procreation. I think there’s also a moral approbation that’s associated with incest.

Jeremy: But I think it comes from breeding. I think the lawyers are going to have a field day with same-sex marriage. I don’t have a strong feeling either way. I just wish everyone that’s living with one other person the best luck in the world, because it’s fantastic.

Josh: Spoken like a happily married man.

Jeremy: Yeah, and also a man who has a dog that he loves.

[From HuffPo via Dlisted]

Does anyone else think it’s funny that the interviewer was like, “No, seriously, there are laws against incest that have nothing to do with breeding, for the love of God” and Jeremy’s like “just hear me out!!” To be fair (I guess?), Jeremy then goes on to say that he doesn’t “have a strong feeling either way” on gay marriage and he wishes “everybody who’s living with one other person the best of luck in the world, because it’s fantastic….Living with another animal, whether it be a husband or a dog, is great. It’s lovely to have someone to love. I don’t think sex matters at all. What it’s called doesn’t matter at all.” And then he married his son for tax purposes.



Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

175 Responses to “Jeremy Irons worries gay marriage will lead to fathers marrying their sons”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. elceibeno08 says:

    I take offense in his comments. I wish I had the courage not to watch the upcoming third season of the Borgias later this month. What an awful thing to say about parents and their children.

  2. Hannah says:

    Now, this is just weird…

  3. Maya says:

    He really is an asshole, and a sexist one at that. His past comments about rape and sexual harassment are just disgusting. Why can’t they all be like Patrick Stewart??

  4. GoodCapon says:

    “It’s not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us against inbreeding, but men don’t breed, so incest wouldn’t cover that.”

    Seriously Jeremy?!

    I still find him hot though. THAT VOICE! I don’t know much about his wife but she was in North&South (Richard Armitage… sigh!) and she was great.

    • Liv says:

      So fathers abusing their sons is not incest because they don’t procreate? How logical.

      • LucyToy says:

        I don’t think he meant that fathers marry their sons for the reasons of love / sex / incest. He was talking about the legalities, which could hypothetically arise (in his opinion, not mine!) if the same-sex marriage laws come to pass.

        It also sounds like he celebrates love. I don’t think he was saying anything about incest. Just a really smart man who didn’t mince his words. Clearly he doesn’t care about media spin-off, which is refreshing.

    • *unf* Joan Jett says:

      Seriously, this guy is ridiculous! Yes, still incest.

      And also welcome to the 1970s, Jeremy, you may take some magic mushrooms now. Because that is where you’ve got your stupid argument. Back then it was the anti-gay movement who spread the rumors – I mean, “highly scientific facts”, of cause – that the only reason why gay men wanted to raise children was because – no, not because they wanted to have families on their own, you silly – they just wanted to rape them.

      And then he goes on and compares same-sex relationships to bestiality…

      So, welcome to homophobia, I guess, and thank you for traveling with the waaaaaaaay-back-mashine *side eye*

  5. cr says:

    If he doesn’t have strong feelings either way, why did he keep talking about it?
    Jeremy, if gay marriage icks you out, don’t get gay married. Problem solved.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Yeah exactly.

      The only comfort I take in the contradictory elements of his statement is that he clearly feels like he can’t openly be a bigot for fear of being shamed by the public.

      Glad that he at least knows his way of thinking is in the minority.

  6. ronnie says:

    I take comfort that he’s going senile and will brush off his insane comments. Also why do the bottom 2 pictures look like he’s holding that woman hostage?

    • T.C. says:

      He’s been saying crazy things about sexuality for years so don’t think it’s only old age or senility.

    • MsGoblin says:

      “Hostage”… Bwaaahahahahahahaha!
      Thanks

    • minime says:

      I had to go back to the photos to see the “hostage situation”, but it was totally worth it ;)

      About what he said, I can just go “huh?” on it…or he was on drugs, or he’s bigoted, or as someone else said he’s simply not that intelligent…it is in the same line of what Christian-democrat politicians here in Germany use to justify the illegality of gay marriage and it’s the line of thought that only makes them look stupid. In his defense, I think he tried to make it better in the rest of the interview and he just sounded kind of confused anyway.

  7. Marta says:

    Yes , he has some point there.the law has no moral issues just focusing on breeding. he is englishman so he has another point of view but i like his thinking here.

    • embertine says:

      Er… yeah, he does NOOOT speak for the English point of view. Trust me on this.

    • Diana says:

      @marta, that’s not true. Incest applies to adopted children too, so it is not there just for inbreed.

      • Marta says:

        Diane , you are right, I forgot the law focusing on breeding and age.

      • maitri says:

        but, he did not say pedophelia….he said fathers and sons, so the son would not have to pay estate tax. that struck me as adult son and father, and using it for tax purposes…

        But it still makes NO sense,b/c based on his logic, mothers and adult sons and fathers and their ADULT daughters, could theoretically have done the same thing to get around the ‘estate tax’ and find a loophole. To my knowledge, Jeremy, no one has come up with this brilliant idea, and no attorneys are running around ‘having a field day’ with that one.

        Anyway, I do think he meant adult sons and fathers….and I don’t know the exact legal definition of incest-is it children and parents? and does it have to include sex, or would marriage alone be allowed?

        I cannot even believe I am thinking about this-never would have entered my mind had this guy not brought up his random thing.
        And what was his point about referring to a husband as an animal like a dog?
        um, humans and animals are not the same, regardless of classifications. There are fundamental differences.
        And, his comment about the dog kind of creeped me out too-
        like those people who have ‘married their dogs’….ew. just ew.

    • karmasabiatch! says:

      Wellll….

      I can’t say that I like his thinking, but I still find him totally hot.

      He reminds me a bit of Sean Coonery, in reference to his sexiness but severely outdated, batsh*t ideals. They’re both totally old school and clearly won’t be swayed in their ideas. Shockingly, I still find both of them to be irresistible. *hangs head*

  8. marie says:

    weirdo says what?!? seriously, I don’t even.. that doesn’t make any sense.

  9. Jess says:

    Anyone else think he watched the episode of It’s Always Sunny where Charlie and Frank try to get married so Charlie can be on Franks healthcare plan?

  10. EscapedConvent says:

    Has he always said such nutty things? I’ve always loved him as an actor & I wish that he would stop talking so I can go on doing that.

  11. Mia 4S says:

    OK let me lay this out once and for all. Canada has had fully legal same sex marriage in the entire country for roughly seven years (that’s the whole country, it has been longer in some places). The “oh it will lead to this…!” that assorted idiots keep talking about? Guess how much of it happened? NONE OF IT!!! No legal polygamy, no legal incest or pedophilia or bestiality, no one married a lamp. For someone like me who is straight and has no close family members who are gay it had ZERO effect on my life when it became legal.

    People (that means you Irons), seriously, grow up.

  12. bowers says:

    That’s stupid (but I still want to see season 3 of The Borgias).

  13. Leen says:

    So, if a father marries hs infertile daughter, that’s totally not incest right?

    Or a mother who’s menopausal marries her son, also not incest, correct?

    Ugh.

  14. paola says:

    this man gives me the creeps. Great actor yes, but scary as hell.

  15. T.Fanty says:

    For some reason, I find it very hard to be offended by Jeremy Irons – possibly because of the insanity. Also, his body of work is deeply diverse and exploratory when it comes to issues if sexuality (I’m thinking of the David Henry Hwang play he did).

    I actually think he’s fairly open minded, but just has the Cumberbatch disease of working things through, intellectually, by talking out the ideas to himself. Unfortunately, for him, he usually does that with journalists present.

  16. tia says:

    Honestly it really really concerns me when people’s minds goes in this disgusting direction. I think it says a whole lot about someone. 1) makes me wonder are they really that stupid 2)Just how sick is someone when that is where their mind goes 3) How miserable do you have to be to constantly make statements about sexual issues 4) Ummm, dude yes that would be incest idiot. Sooo no you couldn’t do that. I am thinking there is more than one reason you can’t marry a family member besides procreating.. IDIOT!! Gross, gross, gross.. You seriously need mental couseling and I mean like quick, fast and in a hurry!! ICK of a human being

  17. Eleonor says:

    No, I don’t get it, probably is the aging process talking.

  18. Buckwild says:

    The connection between him and incest is strong…I feel like he talks about pedophilia/incest often even in unrelated discussions he always brings it up. What’s his deal? Was his Lolita character closer to the truth? Anyways…I’m pretty sure if this was a woman she would be getting struck down like hell.

  19. L says:

    All I could think of was the posting about ‘how to explain gay rights to idiots’ that pretty much covers what he’s worried about (same for marrying the dog or toaster) http://imgur.com/gallery/Q1nCX

  20. MsAubra says:

    Scar needs to have a seat

  21. Feebee says:

    I wish I could unsee this. It’s just so bizarre I think it might taint him for me forever. I haven’t seen the other weird comments he’s apparently made but holy mother of God, how does his brain work?

  22. MCraw says:

    Seems like a backhanded way of being against the gay agenda. I’d rather hear him be updront and say he’s against gay marriage than whatever drivel this is.

  23. JL says:

    That is the most ignorant statement I’ve heard all year.

  24. DenG says:

    OK, so if a married heterosexual couple, maybe super-religious too, produce offspring that are gay, how do we explain that? Where did the heteros go wrong? It’s their fault, right? Weirdos.

  25. Tig says:

    He is a great actor, but not fool-proof- check out “Damage”- the most laughably bad movie ever. Do feel for his son Max- “The Host” isn’t doing so great, and now this!

  26. Lucy2 says:

    Dude is messed up in the head.

  27. tabby says:

    I’m glad he spoke his opinion about gay marriage. Everybody doesn’t feel the same about gay marriage. People have different opinions about gay marriage, I don’t understand why people get upset when some people don’t support it.

    • Mia 4S says:

      Hey everyone is welcome to an opinion but I would just like to see opinions based in common sense, intelligence, reality, or just any kind of connection to the real world. Is that so much to ask?

      Oh here’s another one to add to my rant above. Guess how many churches in Canada have been forced to perform same sex marriages? None.

      Reality people, reality.

      • Garvels says:

        Don’t take this the wrong way,but Canada is a different country with a different constitution. There are already lawsuits involving Catholic charities and gay adoptions in Illinois and MA.

        In Mn yesterday a law was submitted for civil unions for gay couples which would have given same sex couples the same rights and benefits as a married heterosexual couple and it was voted down because it did not reference the word marriage. That to me says everything.

      • Mia 4S says:

        @Garvels, no offense taken! However I don’t think that’s quite the same thing. As I understand it, those charities were receiving state funds. I actually think it is an unfortunate situation but in the end, only privately funded groups can make those kind of choices to exclude. Separation of church and state is an American thing too right?

        The issue of the use of the word “marriage” came up in earlier Canadian debates as well. The resolution is too much to explain here but it actually had to do with protecting the rights of gay and straight couples alike. To put it short, a civil union is not a marriage and a marriage is not a civil union…and some people (of both orientations) like it that way.

    • cr says:

      This isn’t ‘not supporting it’.
      This is very off.

    • fabgrrl says:

      Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion. But we also have right to analyze and critique his opinion, and offer these things called facts, namely “parent/child marriage is considered incestuous and is illegal”, to counter his opinion.

    • embertine says:

      Possibly because your “opinion” is my “life”.

      Perhaps you wouldn’t be so chilled about diversity of opinion if we were discussing whether you should be allowed to get married or not.

  28. Jess says:

    He does kind of have a point (a point that I in no way think should prevent gay marriage). The issues with incest are in-breeding and the power imbalance, but the power imbalance is usually related to grown adults potentially taking advantage of heir kids while they are young-ish. Hypothetically, if a 95yr old guy wanted to ensure his estate was left to his 70yr old son, moral objections to incest in the form of a marriage certificate aren’t as clear cut.

    Never underestimate the lengths some families will go to to keep their estates in the hands of blood relatives.

    • Amy says:

      I really think the laws against incest would still apply in any case

      • Jess says:

        The laws surrounding incest are actually pretty open to amending (amending, not scrapping entirely). It’s quite the hot topic among some law scholars, ethicists, philosophers etc. Once you remove the chance of inbreeding, (either because the couple is same-sex or because they are past it age-wise), the issue is the power imbalance, which doesn’t always apply, and would have no bearing on purely paper marriages where the marriage was basically just securing a person’s will.

        I could see it becoming an (small) issue in a decade or two.

      • Amy says:

        Now that you say that, Jess, I do remember reading about the laws of marrying first cousins in some states specify that the couple has to be a certain age or prove that they are infertile. Still, parent/child just seems too close.

      • KAI says:

        Incest laws differ throughout the world.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      I thought a will was good enough! Isn’t that how you leave your stuff to your kids if you want to, or not? Jeez! You shouldn’t have to marry them too!

      • Jess says:

        Laws differ greatly, but generally the person you are married to is entitled to your estate when you die, regardless of the will. A decent person will abide by the wishes in the will, but in most cases that’s all they are; wishes. It can of course be contested, but in that case the estate is usually divided up.

        If I wanted to leave my estate to a particular son or daughter, and didn’t want ex wives or husbands, other children, siblings etc. laying claim, the best way to prevent that would be a marriage certificate.

      • fabgrrl says:

        Take a good long look at United States v. Windsor. Edith Windsor, sweet little 83 year old lady, is arguing before the Supreme Court that she shouldn’t be bilked of $300,000 in inheritance tax, simply because her legally wed, deceased spouse of 40+ years, happened to have a vagina instead of a penis. No, a will is NOT sufficient.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        The issue is PRECISELY that spouses get certain tax perks. If my husband dies, I will not have to pay an inheritance tax because his assets are considered to be my assets.

        If my aunt or a friend who remembers me in her will dies, no matter how airtight her will is, estate taxes apply, and depending on the estate, these can be substantial.

        The result: a gay or lesbian spouse may be forced to sell his/her home to pay the taxes. A heterosexual spouse will never have to face that.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        As far as tax perks go for non-spouse family members go, I think the law should be changed so that adults *who are domiciled together* should get the same tax breaks as spouses. There are compelling economic arguments to allow this, which have nothing whatever to do with incest.

        Scenario: a daughter moves in with her parent, quitting her job to take care of the parent in his/her final days. She has made substantial financial sacrifices, and the house is the only home she has. Why should she have to pay inheritance taxes on her own home? Why should she not get the same social security benefits that a spouse doing the same kind of work would receive? A statement of domestic partnership would protect her rights, and in turn make it easier for families to make arrangements that would allow a person to not go into a nursing home.

        I see nothing wrong with this. A domestic partnership does not have to be just about who you are boinking– I know married couples who no longer have a sexual relationship, occupy different parts of the house, have separate lives and relationships, and are staying together purely to protect their property and finances, and nobody gets in their way.

  29. Thiajoka says:

    Of course–the same way that heterosexual fathers are always marrying their daughters for tax purposes.

    Just admit you’re homophobic, don’t mind stepping on the civil rights of consenting adults who aren’t pedophiles or incestuously inclined and stop these specious arguments, Jeremy.

  30. Sloane Wyatt says:

    I’m giving Mr. Irons the side eye, just like his wife! Poor woman seems to have the heebie-jeebies having to stand next to such a creepily opinionated geezer.

    That being said, Irons is coming close to that line where I won’t watch whatever he’s in because his remarks are veering close to reprehensible, but for now I’ll be tuning in to The Borgias & wondering if “Lolita” was him playing himself. (He IS very, very good in that.)

  31. fabgrrl says:

    I think his statement says a lot more about his deranged mind than anything else. *shudder*

  32. Kiddo says:

    Jeremy: “Yeah, and also a man who has a dog that he loves.”

    Um, er, WTF? No one finds this comment strange in the context of the conversation? What is going on with the poor dog?

    • GoodCapon says:

      It does seem strange especially with the topic of the conversation but I took it as merely a throwaway comment.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      Oh, it sounds strange to me too, but I figure he’s just British.

      Speaking of the decline of civilisation caused by gay marriage, I don’t know why people get into such a twist about dogs & cats living together. ~sarc~ I know lots of dogs & cats in this domestic arrangement & the only result I ever see is that they irritate the hell out of each other.

      Just like human couples.

    • Mango says:

      I took it to be a dig against his wife. I was surprised when he said he was happily married as I think he has been quite vocal about that not being the case. I think the dog comment was a joke, as in, the set up was that he is happily married, so you assume that such a comment would refer to a husband or wife, but the punchline is that it’s not his wife that makes him happy but his dog. I don’t think it has anything to do with bestiality or people marrying animals though!

  33. Guesto says:

    I would rather listen to Jeremy Irons and his unfiltered opinions and have a good chuckle than all those desperate-to-please celebs out there who spout carefully crafted bullshit in a bid to be liked, keep people on side and sell their ‘products’.

    At least with Irons, you know what you’re getting.

  34. LAK says:

    As I was reading the exchange and his explanation, I was put in mind the Victorian attitude towards certain human relations which if you are of that mindset,or agree with as he seems to be, then what he is saying is true and not being malicious or having a malicious agenda.

    Queen Victoria had very strong views on certain sexual acts and legislated accordingly. She absolutely refused to believe that female homosexuality existed or was possible and refused to sign any laws forbidding. Consequently, it’s always been legal to be a lesbian simply because there was no law to prosecute.

    Paradoxically, she absolutely believed in male homosexuality and sign the legislation to forbid it.

    Any objection to lesbianism has always been moral rather than legal.

    Jeremy Irons is applying the Victorian logic to the subject of incest ie since there is no law against male/male incest, it isn’t wrong. The only objection to it is a moral one rather than a legal one. Just like Lesbianism.

    Taking that thought to it’s logical conclusion as he is doing when applied to inheritance laws, there wouldn’t be inheritance tax since one gifting to a spouse not a descendant.

    The only reason it wouldn’t work with man/daughter as spouse is because male/female incest laws still exist, and they trump marriage.

    It’s a completely intellectual thought he is trying to discuss even though morally it won’t come to pass.

    • Mira says:

      @LAK – I didn’t think about the Victorian influence, but even without that background what Irons says is not all that controversial. He is clearly considering the issue of gay marriage and its implications for things other than equality. Inheritance laws are complicated and people always are on lookout for securing their property. Since law and morality come from various human experiences it’s worth thinking about how this plays out in terms of same-sex incest. Yes, same-sex marriage is about equality but it also means that various laws such as inheritance laws will have to be looked into and modified to adapt to the changing environment. Basically, I agree with what you say.

  35. Amy says:

    He and Morrissey should hang out and make bizarre statements to each other.

    Celebrities– we shouldn’t even try to take their statements seriously. In most cases their wisdom and intelligence are not what made them notable in the first place. I like Crumpets’ analogy. Beautiful, strange fish in the aquarium.

  36. judyjudyjudy says:

    he was clearly just chatting about the legal ramifications, not the moral ones.

    • fabgrrl says:

      Huh? The legal ramifications? Do you honestly think parent/child marriage would EVER be legal, regardless of the gender of those involved?

      And really, who in the hell is queuing up to marry their parent or child? And if two straight fellas marry each other for tax or insurance or inheritance purposes, so what? Believe it or not, I’ve heard of male/female marriages done for exactly the same reasons.

      • judyjudyjudy says:

        I am clearly saying that he was enjoying debating the topic and not making moral judgments. Curious, intelligent people do that.

      • Marta says:

        JudyJudyJudy You are so right.I agree with You.

      • fabgrrl says:

        My apologies, judy. I feel very strongly about this topic and I am lashing out.

      • Garvels says:

        Jeremy was talking from a legal perspective not an emotional perspective. In a court of law cases are debated on law not emotion.

      • Jules says:

        How about getting rid of the absolutely immoral death tax and then no one will have to worry about who gets married! It’s your f’ing money. You spent years of your life earning it, you’ve already paid taxes on it. YOU should get to decide where it goes without the government stepping in to take another monstrous chunk.

      • Bijlee says:

        @jules lol that’s not the only problem. People have said it below that a “domestic partnership” has many benefits. What makes you say a death tax is amoral anyway? What is a death tax and why do we have it?

      • Jules says:

        @Bijlee- well I think we have a death (estate) tax as simply one more excuse for the government to take your property. Why do I think it’s immoral? Because I am one who feels that what we earn on this earth as a result of sacrificing the hours/days/weeks/years of our lives WORKING OUR ASSES OFF instead of lounging around belongs to us and our children or whomever we choose to bestow it upon… NOT the government. If I earned it I should get to say where it goes. If I want to give it to a children’s cancer ward instead of helping the state build another road then that is my business. Plus as I said, all of these funds were already taxed throughout life, and the ‘estate’ is what is left over AFTER the taxes have already been paid. Taking dead people’s property that could go to a grieving family is disgusting to me. I don’t feel that everything belongs to the government and I just get to borrow it for awhile until they take back what is rightfully “theirs” at my death. Maybe people who do not feel they have spent their lives slaving away or had things come easily to them don’t care. But I certainly do.

        Plus as it relates to this topic, if there’s no stupid death tax that people need to scheme around, then as I see it, that’s one major argument overcome for gay marriage opponents. The only thing left is religion and the lamp marrying thing!

    • LAK says:

      @Judyjudy : absolutely.

      @Fabgrrl: in many countries, there are no same gender incest laws. And where there is no law to be broken, so follow people.

      Many of these laws or lack thereof where made at a time when society lived by clear guidelines. Male homosexuality wasn’t out in the open and was deemed a criminal activity, so why bother legislating against something that was thought would never be accepted or split hairs about particulars of the activity when there was already a law that forbade the very same activity.

      The only thing preventing same gender incest is morality, but morality isn’t the law. And when something isn’t the law, there is always someone who takes advantage of it on the very basis that there was no law broken.

    • Viv says:

      I totally get how the legal ramifications can be worth discussing. My adult sister shares a house with my mum, both academics working full-time, both single. Both hang out with various sets of gay couples, next door neighbors on both sides are male gay couples-married. We have spent many entertaining evenings at dinner parties with the neighbors discussing how all of them are much better off financially when it comes to income tax than my sister and my mom are. Railway cards discount, bank fees, insurance plans, public transport- no problem for cohabiting/married partners -tax breaks galore. Even their gym gives discounts – spouses only. So only my mom and my sis always have to pay the full amount on everything with their income taxed as singles. We have often joked they would be sooo much better off as a lesbian couple legally. We joke about it but as they are both single and not intentionally so, this can actually be quite unfair in more than one way. And according to the local law even though they co-own the house I would still automatically inherit part of my mom’s share one day- wouldn’t be that way with a married partner- where spouses automatically are sole heirs.
      My own neighbor is a single mom with two daughters who moved back in after college and are looking for jobs. She always says it is a bit sad that life would be cheaper if she was providing for a lesbian partner than for her two dear ones.
      It IS complicated. I am all for gay marriage but it is hard to overlook other situations, too.

  37. princesslizabeth says:

    What an odd, odd man. Sorry he’s growing more nutty each minute.

    He’ll always be Charles Ryder to me.

  38. sunnyinseattle says:

    Even someone against gay marriage has to agree this guy makes no sense. Lol I kinda think it wasn’t so much about gay marriage, as his stupidity. ;-)

  39. Quinn says:

    I’m not sure the transcript does justice to how almost hilariously bizarre that interview is. The conversation SEEMS to start off in some sort of realm of vague sanity, and then suddenly Jeremy Irons is talking about marrying his son and family dog for tax purposes. I mean good on Dlisted for actually making that insane chat quotable, at one point it felt like he was just saying random words.

  40. yeahright says:

    I think this is taken out of context. I dont think this was his opinion on gay marriage, I think he was trying to illustrate how law can be manipulated and how gay marriage laws will introduce a whole new era of manipulation. Is he saying it will be on a broad scale thing where gay marriage systematically ruins the legal system, morality and society? Hardly. But we all know those random cases that make some crazy claims and this is what he was illustrating by commenting on incest laws.

  41. apsutter says:

    Two words for Jeremy Irons” F*** off. Seriously, we don’t want you on our planet anymore, GTFO

  42. Lemony says:

    What the hell is wrong with this guy?

  43. Memphis says:

    “It’s not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us against inbreeding, but men don’t breed, so incest wouldn’t cover that.”

    WTF??

    I know he enjoys being controversial asshat, but really, Jeremy?

  44. Patrice says:

    Jeremy actually does make a totally logical, non-emotional and valid point here. Courts across the country are using the argument that there is no “logical” reason to ban same-sex marriage and if there is no logical argument against it, then it is unconstitutional.

    When looking at cases of anti incest laws (concerning children or adults), true, the laws have been made from a logical place (the potential for physical deformities to potential offspring) as well as a very strong emotional and ethical one, as it should be. My fears, as well as many others as well as Mr. Irons it seems, is that if all laws start to get thrown out because courts decide that they are not purely “logical” (a largely relative term), then what would be in the way of stopping same-sex relatives from legally marrying (for sexual or purely financial reasons)? They can’t procreate with one another so, how would them being denied NOT turn into a case of being viewed as “unconstitutional”?? Think about it. Then of course, not if, but once, they are given the green light (smh) then naturally, heterosexual incestuous couples would follow suit.

    I don’t think any sane person would say that being gay is at all the same thing as being incestuous, but rather that the legal phrasing in the argument that is being used to fight for gay marriage- which is “logic”-sets the court system up for a dangerously slippery slope. I have no problem with gay marriage but that simple fact is indeniable. A different argument needs to be written in the books for it; perhaps one specifically excluding incestuous couples. (Trust me, they’re out there; there are even pro-incest rights organizations. Just look it up.) That’s what makes me and many others worry for the future of our country; not at all the marriage of gays itself.

    • LAK says:

      It’s always astounding the ill thought out laws in the rush to placate an ever changing society.

      And the knee jerk reaction when you point out the slippery slope. The slippery slope has to be taken into consideration otherwise you find yourselves 5+yrs later arguing against a situation that should/could have been addressed at the beginning.

      We are seeing that in Britain with all kinds of laws that were rushed to the books without taking into considerations the slippery slope and the loopholes.

  45. Bijlee says:

    I’ve heard one person say something similar and shes a big supporter of gay marriage.

    She and I were discussing same sex marriage and human sexuality. I said I don’t care some people will some people won’t yadda yadda. It don’t matter to me and she was like “yeah sexuality is a spectrum and whatever people want it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business.” But then she was like “I don’t care I mean it’s not my business. Even if a mother/son or father/daughter or brother/sister or same sex sibs want to marry or be in a relationship, I shouldn’t bother them because that’s their choice. I won’t do it, but it’s not like it’s affecting me so what’s the big deal?”

    …yeah that was one of the weirdest discussions I’ve ever had. I said “um yeah it’s wrong because it’s incest!” And she replied with “so that’s their choice.” I was just in shock and yelling “um nooooo! That’s wrong and grossssss!” not my best arguing position. I was shocked anyone could say that.

    And then I found people on the Internet who “agreed” with her and argued that there should be no “marriage”, but civil unions should be between anyone who wants one so people could get benefits adopt, tax benefits, etc. Look I can get together with that plan better than hers, but still F*** NO!!!

  46. Shelly says:

    Huh? That’s some craziness.

  47. Ag says:

    Stfu and sit down, you old, dried-up bag of crazy. Ugh.

  48. Garvels says:

    Bwahhhhhh! I love this guy. He was soooo right on the legalities of same sex marriages….it is going to open up a new can of worms. Jeremy is a Libertarian like myself and people like us would like the government to get out of the marriage business. That would shut everyone up!!!

  49. Janet says:

    Funny he doesn’t sound concerned about straight men marrying their mothers… just sayin’.

  50. Str8Shooter says:

    Another DUMBASS celebrity making DUMBASS comments.

    Seriously, STFU and act. No one give a flying f*ck what you think, moron.

  51. Thiajoka says:

    Exactly! The whole notion is too ludicrous to even give credence to. Its illogical structure exposes the statement as mere bigotry.

  52. Grace says:

    Umm…WHAT? I seriously hope his son is not about to write a tell-all about his Pedo Dad. This man is creepy times ten.
    All he had to say is he thought anyone should be allowed to get married-why did he have to go all the way to sons and fathers(or dogs)?
    That’s not political, that’s bad touch craziness speaking.

  53. Thor says:

    I sincerely lost any respect I had for this man.

  54. Olivia says:

    Okay, so at this point I am starting to worry about Max Irons.

  55. dcypher1 says:

    I understand what hes saying people will do anything if they legally can cus some people just dont care about morals.

  56. Flower says:

    There are laws against marriage with 1st degree kinship, e.g. Sister/brother, mother/son in every country, even against second degree kinship in many countries e/g. 1st cousins , uncle/niece, aunt/nephew etc. So he is talking a lot of guff (as usual).

    • LAK says:

      …..but there are none for same sex incest ie mother/daughter, father/son, sister/sister, brother/brother, uncle/nephew etc.

      That’s what he is talking about. And where there is no law, some person is bound to follow using that very loophole.

      • Kate says:

        It’s been against the law to have sex with a same-sex relative since 2003. The statute doesn’t make any reference to the gender of one side at all. They define relative as: parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. The gender of the person liable to be charged for that offence isn’t specified.

        Adoption is mentioned specifically as counting later in the statute. And step-parents, too. If Woody Allen had been married to Mia Farrow, his relationship with Soon Yi would have been criminalised in this country. They weren’t, but still. Having the principle set out is satisfying.

      • LAK says:

        Thanks for the update Kate. I wasn’t aware that a law had been put in place.

      • Mango says:

        Kate

        Are you referring to the UK or the US here?

  57. Kate says:

    The basic problem with Jeremy Irons is he’s incredibly stupid, but because he’s an actor and people interview him, he thinks he is therefore worth listening to.

    He’s a creepy, stupid little man. Who happens to pretend to be someone else well.

  58. RHONYC says:

    why oh why does he have to be such a damn creeper in real life?!? 8O

  59. Rita says:

    I posted this comment several hours ago but appears to be “accidentally” misplaced.

    I agree with Mr. Irons if his point of view is that there are collateral ramifications in the evolution of societal change, i.e., the acceptance of gay marriage.

    The fundemental issue is, does society through the democratic process have the right to define morality and does that constitutional right supersede the constitutional rights of others?

    In other words, should the government and the people intercede in the behavior of victimless and consenting adults based soley on the majority’s morality? To that end, rights advocates must then consider their “consenting adults” protection for polygamists, prostitution, incestuous adults, and what ever other adult behavior the future may hold.

    I hope this comment will be viewed for its thought provoking intent and not as an irritation to “open minded” people who will accept nothing less than unconditional support for their own views…..like they accuse their opponents.

    • Mira says:

      Rita – I just posted something similar in reply to LAK’s comment above. I agree that his comments should be looked into in terms of societal evolution. The support for gay marriage and the growth in its movement has largely been from the point of view of equality. However, that changes the broader existing societal equilibrium legally and morally, which should be open for public deliberation. You’ve posed a good question and although I have no response to it at the moment, I definitely will think about it.

    • LAK says:

      @Rita/@Mira – what a thought provoking question. love it. @Patrice at no 44 in the comments section poses a similar conundrum.

      The knee-jerk refusal of people to listen to the questions or debate is what puts illthought out laws on the books to everyone’s regret further down the line.

    • garvels says:

      Very valid points and I also agree with LAK. People need to start listening instead of insulting those who disagree with their point of view or when their view is challenged.

      As LAK stated a hastily pushed bill based on an emotionally charged subject often has negative effects, because all things were not considered because people were afraid to express their concerns.

  60. hownowbrowncow says:

    He’s often making bizarre and troubling comments like this. He hasn’t seemed quite right since he made ‘Lolita’

  61. RdyfrmycloseupmrDvlle says:

    Like many overly educated but socially awkward English I think he thinks he’s “being sexy” when, really, he’s just being “gah!”.
    As Alfred Hitchcock once said Actors should just act and keep their mouths shut. I totally agree! I have stopped liking or respecting SOOOOO many actors since the “age of oversharing” started!
    Jeremey Irons was my first major crush in the late 1970s with “Brideshead Revisited”. he was gorgeous.
    Alas, I had no idea what a freaky libertine he is. Disappointing.Plus, Id always assumed he was gay anyway. maybe he likes it all?

  62. CC says:

    This is actually kind of funny. He’s an idiot of course, but were you expecting any better? He’s an actor, for crying out loud. An actor with brains is the exception, not the rule. They’re paid to pretend to be something they’re not with unrealistic, exaggerated and made up stories for the purpose of dramatic effect. Their whole world is an illusion. This whole thing just sounds like a bad TV movie.

  63. lflips says:

    This was so absurd I had to laugh; it wasn’t rational enough to be inflammatory to me.

  64. Wow says:

    Well now, I’m just going to watch the Lion King and enjoy Scar getting tossed into a fiery pit full of laughing hyenas and burning to death THAT-MUCH-MORE!

    What an ass.