Jeremy Irons still insisting that it’s only incest if someone gets pregnant

Last week, we and every other site ran the story about Jeremy Irons absolutely insane comments during a HuffPo interview. Irons was asked about gay marriage, I think specifically in reference to the two cases before the Supreme Court this session. Go here to read what Irons said – he basically went off on this tangent about gay marriage opening the door to fathers marrying their sons for tax purposes, and when confronted with the idea of incest laws, Irons insisted that it’s only incest if you’re breeding, which… is gross. That’s a really worrisome and gross distinction to make, regardless of its (lack of) context in the gay marriage discussion.

So, everyone was like “WTF?” and now Jeremy has issued a written statement to try to explain what he really meant, and honest to God, I think he’s making it worse:

I am deeply concerned that from my on line discussion with the Huffington Post, it has been understood that I hold a position that is anti gay. This is as far from the truth of me as to say that I believe the earth is flat.

I was taking part in a short discussion around the practical meaning of Marriage, and how that institution might be altered by it becoming available to same-sex partners. Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non reproductive relationships). Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.

I am clearly aware that many gay relationships are more long term, responsible and even healthier in their role of raising children, than their hetero equivalents, and that love often creates the desire to mark itself in a formal way, as Marriage would do. Clearly society should find a way of doing this.

I had hoped that even on such a subject as this, where passions run high, the internet was a forum where ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name-calling.

I believe that is what it could be, but it depends on all of us behaving, even behind our aliases, in a humane, intelligent and open way.

[From Jeremy Irons’ site]

“Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.” NO IT WASN’T. Jeremy was even confronted – in real time, by the interviewer – with the legal and criminal contradiction to his “kite-flying” incest scenario and he rejected the contradiction by making the argument about “it’s only incest if someone gets pregnant” basically. And he is STILL making the same incest argument – “incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non reproductive relationships”. Dude… STOP. Incest is incest, whether or not there are children born of incestuous relationships. This is like the “legitimate rape” debate. There is NO threshold component for rape. Rape is rape. Incest is incest.

Anyway… I guess I believe that Jeremy Irons is truly “pro” gay marriage, but who can even remember because OMG his views on incest are so g—damn creepy. As for his complaint about internet snarking… dude, YOU are the one “flying a kite” for a scenario in which you would marry your son to pass on your fortune, and if you had sex with him it would be fine too because two dudes can’t get pregnant. You said it. Own it and deal with the consequences.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

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

80 Responses to “Jeremy Irons still insisting that it’s only incest if someone gets pregnant”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. CandyKay says:

    He looks like a real-life version of the Joel Grey character in Cabaret.

  2. T.Fanty says:

    Technically (and historically speaking), he is actually right on the incest thing.

    • marie says:

      yeah, that’s what I thought.

    • Chrissy says:

      Really? Where does it say so? Out of curiosity…

    • Lulu.T.O. says:

      Indeed. The genetic mishaps of the various royal families brought to light the hazards of inbreeding long before scientists starting studying fruit fly genetics.

      I’ve read some studies that concluded that if siblings are raised together, there is an inbuilt aversion to their breeding. However, if they are raised apart from each other, no such aversion exists, and that was exactly how many of the royal families raised their children.

      Just a rabbit path to the discussion at hand…

      • Lou says:

        Yep, it’s called ‘genetic sexual attraction’, and I feel for the people who develop it, it must be awful.

        But I really resent people bringing incest into the gay marriage discussion. One will not lead to the other. It is not a slippery slope. Incest is its own issue (some forms actually legal in several countries) and can be discussed separately if someone wants to legalise it. It’s not a valid response to the same-sex marriage question.

    • Kim says:

      Really? so my neighbor shouldn’t be in prison for raping his son.Thanks for information

      • Jess says:

        Of course he should be in jail. For rape.

        Jeremy’s point isn’t even about actual incest. It was about marriages of convenience. He wasn’t suggesting that if gay marriage was accepted fathers would start marrying their sons and begin sexual relationships, but than hypothetically someone could take advantage of the tax loophole by taking part in a sham marriage.

      • minime says:

        @ Jess: still it’s an invalid point. Taking advantage of the tax loophole can also be done by heterosexual marriage, so the question here should be how to avoid sham marriage and not gay marriage per se…it’s not a valid argument and that’s it. The fact that he associates a sham marriage to gay marriage is nonetheless revealing.

      • Nicolette says:

        OMG. He should have to suffer way more than jail in my book.

    • V4Real says:

      I’m sorry guys I have to disagree; historically or not incest is incest regardless of if a child is conceived or not. It is a crime of having sexual intercourse between parent child or sibling.

      We can’t base everything on history and excuse it because it is history. Many of us know what was past has been wrong on so many levels. This is why now we have such laws to govern things such as incest.

      BTW; it would be against the law for a father to marry his biological son and a mother to marry her biological daughter. WTF is he even talking about.

      • marie says:

        never mind, T. Fanty explains way better than I can.

      • T.Fanty says:

        “Incest is incest” doesn’t mean anything: incest is not necessarily r@pe. The familial aspect to incest makes it an appalling thought for most rational people, but for many class-based societies (I would say from Medieval and prior), it was simply a political or social expediency. Most societies before the 18th century didn’t factor love or sexual pleasure into marital relations and sexual definitions of deviance generally didn’t exist (see Foucault for a *real* discussion of that). Therefore, legal prohibitions against incest were primarily about regulating social contracts.

        However, in the early 20th century, in England, statutes were put in place to protect step children, which although, I would argue, was still economically driven, recognized the validity of consent. What people are reacting to (and probably quite rightly, given Irons’ example) is the implication of child a use by the pederastic nature of his example. If someone can’t or doesn’t consent, that is a different issue and is wrong, regardless of the incest. The above poster’s neighbor is most likely in prison for the sexual assault, not the incest.

      • km says:

        Hate to fuel the fire, but incest is still a social construct, and though it’s taboo in any society, it’s dependent upon the society to actually define what ‘IT’ is.
        For example in some places it may not be considered incest to couple with your cousin or niece or nephew. I think there are a lot more complicated rules for some folks, but you get my drift.

      • popcorn says:

        Can i remind you that not too long ago society stood against homosexuality on the very grounds now held against adult concenting incestous relationships i.e ‘that its just wrong’. Gay activists like to steer away from logical conclusions to the very correct concept of equality. Its dishonest in my view to seek to open the door for themselves and leave out the less politically correct but otherwise equivalent group. To be clear i refer to ADULT CONSENTING couples (sorry for ‘shouting’). It reminds me of suffragettes who assured the men folk that only white women would benefit to make their movement less threatening.

      • popcorn11 says:

        Can i remind you that not too long ago society stood against homosexuality on the very grounds now held against adult concenting incestous relationships i.e ‘that its just wrong’. Gay activists like to steer away from logical conclusions to the very correct concept of equality. Its dishonest in my view to seek to open the door for themselves and leave out the less politically correct but otherwise equivalent group. To be clear i refer to ADULT CONSENTING couples (sorry for ‘shouting’). It reminds me of suffragettes who assured the men folk that only white women would benefit to make their movement less threatening.

      • V4Real says:

        Okay, let me rephrase what I said earlier. In America we have some form of codified incest prohibition. One poster spoke about a neighbor raping his son and one of the responses she got was that the man most likely went to jail for the rape and not for the incest. If this took place in the US; that man would be in jail for incest even if it was consenual and the kid was 18. It is largely illegal in the United States to have sexual relations with a relative such as mother, father, biological siblings and grandparents and it does warrant jail time. Now in some states individual statues do vary. In Jersey if the parties are consenting adults there are no penalities. States such as NY and Mass you can get 20 years in jail and in Flordia and good old Alabama you can get life. You will be registered as a sex offender on all counts.

        Though I can only speak for America I hold true to what I said when I said incest is incest. Just because it may be legal in some parts of the world it is still considered incest no matter how you try to dress it up. Those countries just don’t have laws to govern that kind of behavior. There may be places where open racism is not illegal but it’s still racism, there are just no laws put in place for it.

      • videli says:

        tfanty, even before the 20th century , Europeans were differentiating between 1st degree, and 2nd and 3rd degree relatives. Nobody was marrying their own son for the sake of preserving property, the way Irons suggests it’s going to happen. Their cousin, maybe.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        Not exactly a crotchshot, but I feel I must at least try to live up to my moniker!

        Because we all need it!

        Here is a nice clip of Irons and Juliet Binoche messing up their hair in Louis Malle’s film Damage– Very incesty and provocative, since Binoche plays his son’s fiancee! It ends with his son’s death of course.

        Since I am at work, I turned off the sound. I hope this doesn’t have a cheesy soundtrack:

      • Jay says:

        V4Real: in saying “incest is incest” you seem to believe there is only one legal definition and a place either has it or not. Laws in different places have different exclusions and may not follow e.g. the exact prescribed exclusion in the Bible. How can you say “incest is incest” as if the definition is self-evident when societies do not universally agree on the definition? I can see an argument for excluding breeding, excluding underaged (lack of consent), and excluding family members in authority (e.g. parents) but I do recall an article I read where non-breeding adult siblings (who discovered they were siblings after they’d already been in a relationship) had argued it was no one else’s business and I had to concede that it was hard to form an objective objection (aside from the “eww” factor, which is what some people base their objection to gay marriage on). Still I do feel Irons’s argument is pretty flimsy and about on par with someone thinking there’d be an epidemic of “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” insurance scams in the wake of gay marriage.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        And to make things all better…. This is for you, TFanty!

        Hedgehog love!

      • V4Real says:

        @Jay would it make you feel better if I stated that IMO incest is incest when it comes to immediate family; which is what Iron’s is reffering to. I get what you’re saying by stating that incest may not be recognized as such in some countries. Yes I know that degree of relationships that qualifies as incest does vary, let’s say cousin to cousin. Therefore you are saying that the word may have a different meaning elsewhere.
        Still the broader meaning is stating that it means sexual relations between parent, sibling, grandparent or relatives who are too close in blood to marry. Iron’s is not talking about some distant cousins. IMO just because a place allows the coupling of relatives or have no laws against it does not necessarily change the entire meaning of the word. In New Jersey it is not illegal if the two relatives are over 18 and consenting adults but the word for that act is still called incest. The laws may be different but the meaning of the word pretty much remains the same. Let’s not confuse the meaning of incest with the laws of incest.
        What about polygamy? There are places in the world where that act is legal or they have no laws to say otherwise but it still holds the same meaning. A man may be allowed to have more than one wife but there’s a word for that, and that word is polygamy.

      • Troubadour says:


    • A~ says:

      Actually, all cultures, whether they have a concept of genetic inbreeding or not, have an incest taboo. What constitutes incest varies by culture (in some you can marry a cousin, in others you can’t) but cultures have always regulated marrying certain relatives. Unless you’re an Egyptian Sun-God, of course.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        I was just going to pipe in that the ancient Egyptians has a completely different take on this. Brother–sister, father–daughter, and mother–son, cousin-cousin, aunt-nephew, uncle-niece, and other variations were practiced among royalty as a means of perpetuating the royal lineage.

        I was recently at a production of Ovid’s Metamorphosis here in Boston, and it was fun listening to the audience squirm during the part about Myrrha and the birth of Adonis.

      • T.Fanty says:

        @ C&C. I teach that myth. I LOVE that one!

        So, apparently Pygmalion is okay, though?

  3. GossipG says:

    Sick perv

    • V4Real says:

      Does this man have a close relative that he wants to be intimate with; is this why he is putting this nonesense on the table.

      • candigirl says:

        Jeremy Irons is sexually attracted to his son, he’s made references to it in other interviews. That’s why he is unabashedly pro incest. It’s also why the first thing that comes to his mind when thinking of the gay marriage example is father son incest.
        The question I have is if he’s acted on it and if the same thing happened to him when he was a child.

  4. Eleonor says:

    Sometimes the best thing to do is to SHUT UP.

  5. minime says:

    “inteligent” he said. Where?

  6. j.eyre says:

    I was dismayed by his comments but given that they were the impetus for that hilarious rant in Kaiser’s last paragraph, I am almost glad he made them.

  7. Janet says:


  8. Faye says:

    Irons certainly wouldn’t win in a debating society, and I don’t agree with his views, but I do sort of feel a bit sorry for him. No matter what he said, he would have been excoriated if it wasn’t totally pro gay marriage. There really is no debate about gay marriage anymore; you either get on board with it 100%, or you’re branded a bigot and a hater.

    To clarify, I actually do support gay marriage, but I sometimes feel advocacy groups and the media would win even more people over if they let people (especially older people) get there in their own time, and not jump on everyone who expresses an opposing view. Attacking people and calling them names rarely wins them over. I’m from Baltimore, and it’s big news over here because Johns Hopkins Med School disinvited Dr. Benjamin Carson because he had expressed reservations against gay marriage in a TV (or radio?) interview. Now a lot of people in the local African-American community feel that was racist, and are less sympathetic toward the cause.

    We recently made gay marriage legal in Maryland, and I remember reading a series of articles on how one advocacy group won people over. They went door to door and actually sat down and talked with people who had previously not supported the measure, and calmly and respectfully helped to address a lot of misperceptions about and negative feelings toward gay marriage. It worked. I think there’s a lesson to keep in mind when we get all hysterical over anyone with a different opinion (however badly expressed).

    • Lulu.T.O. says:


    • genevieve says:

      “you either get on board with it 100%, or you’re branded a bigot and a hater.”

      That’s pretty much what happens when people realize that it’s a human rights issue.

      • kixendawn says:

        Thanks Geneveive, great point.

      • videli says:

        I’m with you, Genevieve. I feel that honey is better than vinegar, but then, if we were to change the terms a little bit, I don’t think I could have the patience to politely explain the racist why racism is bad.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        If you were at a party and somebody was going on about how terrible mixed race marriages are, would you smile and defer politely and tell them that they had a fair point?

        Of course you wouldn’t. I don’t advocate throwing your drink against the wall, but most people would take a firm stand or at the very least coldly turn away and stonewall that person.

        It is a human rights issue. Expressions of homophobia is no longer socially acceptable. Some people might still have to adjust to this, but they are becoming fewer and fewer as the years go by.

      • A~ says:

        Exactly. You don’t say, “Racism is a debatable issue;let the racists have some wiggle room, people.”

      • Kelly says:

        I think Faye’s point was that we have to be more open-minded with people, generally more accepting and tolerating, it’s the only civil way, regardless or not if we agree with their views.

        Yes it’s a human rights issue, but you won’t get very far if you just scream and abuse people who don’t agree with you, it’s hypocritical. You’ll get more human rights in the end if you stop, listen, and try to engage in respectable conversation and try to point out the negative in their attitude to them.

        Otherwise it just becomes a “lets silence anyone who is against freedom of speech” kinda thing.

      • Leen says:

        Well, I speak solely from personal experience but if you attack people, often you would not win much support.
        You see I have a nationality which everyone and their mother has an opinion on, and I have a lot of racism thrown at me, explicitly and implicitly. In fact, it arouses way too many emotions for people.
        I found getting into arguments about it does not help. I think the key here is to explain and educate people about gay marriages/racism/mixed raced… I know certainly that challenging people’s racism was the key in changing their opinions and explaining to them.

    • BlackMamba says:

      Great comment. I keep seeing news like the one you mention about people(politicians/pastors etc.) being shunned for comments they made like 20 years ago that was not supportive of the gays even if they have changed their views since then. It’s like, people change, they may have had reservations then but they grew up and understand now, just let bygones be bygones.

    • minime says:

      I’m sorry but bringing hypothetical situations of what can come after gay marriage is allowed is not an acceptable way of discussing this issue. The problem here is that this is a line used by many anti-gay politicians and it is syllogistically wrong. If people want to reason against gay marriage they should focus in what will happen when gay people are allowed to marry that would be so bad for society and not extrapolate to situations that have nothing to do with it. If gays are allowed to marry that doesn’t mean that I can marry my dog, or my chair or my son or my sister, it means that people from the same sex will be legally recognized the right to marry and that’s it.

      • Kim says:

        Thank you if I’m not mistaken segregationists had reasons why Blacks shouldn’t be allowed to attend schools with Whites.Separate but equal is not equal. Civil Union is not the same as Marriage.

      • Faye says:

        Think you’re missing my point here. I did not say that you should legitimize the reasons people give for their opinions. My point was that if you’re trying to accomplish something, jumping all over people and being verbally abusive maybe isn’t the best way to do it. Is your endgame getting gay marriage passed or getting a one-up on someone else?

      • minime says:

        @ Faye: I understood your point and I agree with it 100%. Mine was that this doesn’t apply to what Mr. Irons said since it wasn’t a valid argument. He’s not discussing gay marriage, he’s discussing something else and his association of ideas is simply appalling. First time I heard it I thought that he was only expressing himself in an awkward way, but the way he justifies it makes it only worse.
        But don’t take me wrong, I totally agree that a respectful dialogue is the way to go.

    • T.Fanty says:

      I agree. And I many of us judge the sexual activity of others by our own comfort levels. I also wonder if gender doesn’t come into play. For many men, sexual liberation is defined by the right to have as much sex as they want, with they want, how they want. For women, historically denied a lot if their choice in the matter, the primary goal if sexual liberation is the undisputed right to day no. Hence the sense that we are having two different conversations here.

      (Not 100% sure I believe that but thought I would throw it out).

  9. lucy2 says:

    OMG stop talking. Just stop.

  10. DanaG says:

    Who even thinks about rules of incest? He is an idiot and I will no longer be watching his movies although I haven’t seen him in anything for a long time. If I did I would just be wondering if he had had sex with any of his kids cause if they dont pregnant in his world that is ok. But gay marriage is wrong? He needs to just STFU.

  11. Annie says:

    Here is a quote of his: “It’s very difficult because children under sixteen are immensely attractive, any father will tell you. We have to accept that, understand it for what it is and not become hysterical about it. Strangely enough, Humbert Humbert is not a paedophile … because he knew he was doing wrong. That’s his tragedy in a way. I remember when my son was twelve he was like a god. He just went through that sort of golden time for about 18 months. Parental love is sexual. Boys will flirt outrageously with their mothers.”

    • ronnie says:

      ……. wtf. he seems to think a lot about man and son relationship and that is soooo creepy.

    • MorticiansDoItDeader says:

      @annie, I think I need a silkwood shower after reading that 😝

    • DeltaJuliet says:

      Ohhhhhhhhh my God. Seriously? OK, as the mother of two young boys, of course I think they are beautiful, gorgeous, and perfect. There is nothing sexual in that whatsoever. Is he for REAL?

    • L says:

      He is such a creep. His poor sons.

    • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

      I think he’s gone full-Aschenbach on us. Ye gods.

    • Lemony says:

      Horrible. His poor kids.

    • Bijlee says:

      Isn’t that a Freudian thing? Didn’t Freud say things like that too?

    • Elle Kaye says:

      He is saying that since Humbert knew it was wrong to have sex with 12 year old Delores, he should not be considered a pedophile. Well, that would muck up the legal system. Just admit you knew that murdering was wrong, and you shall not be considered a murderer, simply introspectively impulsive.


    • Diana says:

      This man ponders waaaaay to much on incest and that comment about his son is just freking creepy.

  12. Feebee says:

    Despite whatever historical rules of definition there is, what he said is just wrong… it’s like saying men can’t be raped. Actually he sounds a bit like those Republican senators… good lord… yes, time for him to stop talking.

  13. SydneySpy says:

    I guess some people just can’t cope with debate and ideas that are intellectually beyond them.

    • Lemony says:

      I understand the point he’s trying to make. I don’t agree with him & I feel he expressed himself very poorly. He has a history of expressing odd sexual views on matters & it’s hard for people to separate his current comments with those previous ones. Also, “sham marriages” have existed since the beginning of time, so he needn’t get so worked up about it.

      • T.Fanty says:

        I think that if you go back far enough, the official term for “sham” marriages was simply “marriages.”

      • Lemony says:

        Yes, I agree! For many, especially women, marriage = survival.

  14. princesslizabeth says:

    Okay, Jeremy, time to scuttle back under your rock. Shoo, shoo!

  15. Marianne says:

    Honestly, I think his train of thought is that gay couples cannot have biological children together and therefore they could get away with marrying their children for tax purposes because they aren’t technically related. Whereas as heterosexual couples can have biological children together and therefore would be illegal (in some places at least).

    Now, I realize that’s still crap because heterosexual couples can adopt children as well and therefore can get away with it. I’m just saying thats most likely his train of thought.

  16. Amanda says:

    Re. This is wrong incest is incest period. It used to be socially acceptable to some degree, bit it no longer is.

  17. Garvels says:

    All sides of this debate need to be discussed. Polygamy is quite common in the Middle East,so if marriage is extended to gay couples why not polygamists? In some Middle eastern cultures marriages are arranged with relatives or with girls who are under the age of 16 and the argument for gay marriage that we love each other etc…could be extended to 2 elderly sisters who live together. Why should the gay couple receive the benefits of marriage and not the 2 sisters?

    Perhaps we should just ditch the institution all together which would in turn prevent people from going broke with lavish weddings etc….

  18. Mich says:

    I find both his original comment and his attempt to ‘clarify’ his thoughts patently offensive.

    His real “point” is that gay marriage opens the door to legalized perversion. Bringing incest into the conversation is no different from comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality.

    • Quinn says:

      But that is not the point at all, Jeremy Irons was not talking about sexual incestual relationships, he was talking about the possibility of two adult same-sex family members who might get married for tax purposes only (i repeat – no sexual relationship). This might appeal to two elderly siblings living together. Unmarried, if the sibling who owned the property died, taxes would have to be paid on all assets left in a will which may result in the property being put up for sale. If they were legally married, the property would simply transfer to the spouse (sibling). Personally, I think these taxes can be very unfair especially as all these assets have already been taxed.

      I think a lot of readers have missed the point Jeremy Irons was discussing. In no way was he condoning incestual sexual relationships or paedophilia, he wasn’t talking about sex at all. He was talking about the legal ramifications of same sex marriages for (financial) convenience Paedophilia is actual irrelevant to his point as under-age children cannot legally marry.

      • Mich says:

        I didn’t miss his ‘point’. I just take it in the context of:

        a) It is a stupid ‘point’.

        b) It reduces the desire of committed same sex partners to marry to an issue of ‘financial gain’. Way to dehumanize people.

        c) It ignores the legitimate desires of millions of law abiding, decent people and instead focuses on a ridiculous ‘worst case’ scenario that has very little chance of actually occurring in real life.

        d) I find it completely offensive to introduce such an extreme social taboo into a discussion already tainted by extremist talk of perversion, pedophilia, bestiality and the destruction of society.

        e) It is hardly unheard of for heterosexuals to marry for financial gain. Why limit the discussion to teh gayz?

  19. littlemissnaughty says:

    For the love of all that is ridiculous. Aside from the insanity of his statements, I think the fact that people thought he was against same-sex marriage is really the least of his PR problems right now.
    And I’m not going to get into the incest debate because it has nothing to do with the marriage issue. I just have one question for the creep. What exactly stops straight fathers from marrying their straight sons right now??? Yeah, I thought so.

  20. Bijlee says:

    Jeremy irons is a moron….but he’s bringing up points that are highly uncomfortable to talk about. Especially considering that we are basing this on consenting adults and it’s no one else’s business what consenting adults do (ick ick ick ick ick), especially not the govts business. I don’t know it’s MAJORLY weird, but there really isn’t much you can say against the consenting adults thing. Maybe we should make that more specific ie non related consneting adults, with non related meaning no less than two degrees of relation. Therefore second cousins are all right… marriage.

    …plus then what arguments are there against polygamy? Aren’t the arguments against those religiously based as well? If they’re consenting adults why can’t they all get married…..ugh this is weird. I don’t like this.

    There’s just too many implications that we aren’t really discussing or dealing with. The govt really should get out of marriage. There should be domestic partnerships Ike people have been saying that provide the same benefits as what we know as marriage today. There should be……but I’m not interested in supporting that at all honestly.

    I don’t know. What’s been said makes logical sense, but it’s icky to think people could “partner” with their mothers, fathers, sisters, etc for legal benefits. I don’t think I could support this even if it makes logical sense. It should be gay marriage…then full stop. Nothing else. After that deal with the marriage laws as between two nonrelated consenting adults.

    Also irons does seem homophobic when you read what he originally said….the guy is so weird, but I don’t think he is homophobic. It just doesn’t fit with how I see his “character.” The guy has problems in his head though I definitely think that.

  21. Kelly says:

    I think (I THINK) his point was that, hypothetically, if you wanted to take on the law for whatever reason of yours by wanting to make an incestuous union of two consenting adults (lets not mix this with pedophilia and rape, as they are two different things)of the same sex, you could do that by pointing out the fact that you will not cause any harm to anyone with your union, i.e. you won’t procreate and genetically screw up your kid. So TECHNICALLY, you sort of would have a point in asking the law to validate your incestuous union. This however has nothing to do with gay marriage in general really, and I don’t see why he keeps bringing it up if he’s so pro-gay rights.
    But his twisted idea is kind of interesting, what if two brothers were raised apart and only met when they were adults, then they fell in love and wanted to get married. Would it be right to stop them? I’d stop them, but logically I have to wonder if I’d have the right to do so…

  22. Lisa says:

    Sleazeball. No wonder he won the part of Humbert Humbert.

  23. Grace says:

    All of these philosophical/historical argument are unnecessary. If citizens create new wealth-preserving laws incest becomes unnecessary.
    IMO the reason people harp on about incest endlessly is because they want to be justified in having no impulse control with their own children. Weak-minded people like incest to be continued because it floats their boats, not because they care about preserving lineage or assets.