Jeremy Irons gets creepy again, talks incest and gay marriage
Here's Jeremy Irons creepin' everybody out, again.
Jeremy Irons gets creepy again, talks incest and gay marriage
Here's Jeremy Irons creepin' everybody out, again. A little more than a month after suggesting that women should be totally cool with playful pats on their butts, Irons took a break from his busy schedule of not being in any quality movies since, like, The Lion King (unless you count Kingdom of Heaven?) to insinuate that legalizing gay marriage will make it so that fathers and sons will start shacking up. Take it away, Jeremy:
"Could a father not marry his son?" Irons asked HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps. Irons argued that "it's not incest between men" because "incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don't breed," and wondered whether same-sex marriage might allow fathers to pass on their estates to their sons without being taxed.
But, Irons didn't stop there. Oh, no. He had to bring the whole animal thing into it because of course he did.
"Living with another animal, whether it be a husband or a dog, is great," he said. "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." [Huffington Post]
Ugh. In case you missed the entire news cycle over the course of the past few days, Irons isn't alone. Here's Jon Stewart, on Wednesday's episode of The Daily Show, making fun of people who equate bestiality to homosexuality.
You really have to wonder if the reason he thinks it could happen is because he is capable of doing it.— ej610- Close readers may have noticed that he said sex doesn't matter. He's actually come up with a great idea. I could marry my son once I turn 70 and then he gets all of my money tax free, plus my social security benefits. The question is a little more complex than just bigotry. Exploitation of benefits is a real concern. BTW, many states forbid first cousins from marrying, despite the fact that couples over 40 have a greater chance of birth defects in their offspring. If we're in for a penny, we might as well be in for a pound--anything goes!— Right:&Right
- No worries. He has always been a bit odd.— truthfirst
- The new normal, speak against gay marriage and we will hammer you till you are sorry you did. You would swear by all the ink gay marriage is getting that half the world was gay instead of the 3% reality.— Thelonius Monk
- Pretty sure the GOP is ringing him up now, Oh what, he's not a citizen? Neither was Obama according to these brain dead lumps of oatmeal....— CiceroSpuriousDeodatusTheSecond
- And Felonius - if you don't want to hear about gay marriage, fight for it to be legal so the only way you will hear about it is when heterosexual dbags like Nick Carter decide to honor the "sanctity" of marriage by making it a TV special. But since it's a TV special between a man and women it's a blessed event. HAHAHAHAHA. I wonder if the divorce and remarriage will be televised too. HAHAHAHAHAH.— CiceroSpuriousDeodatusTheSecond
- Every argument that is being made for gay marriage can be made for a father marrying his son or two brothers wanting to get married, How is it any different from the gay marriage arguments. "Two people are in love and want to get married"...what business is that of yours? Isn't that the argument?
The human-animal thing is dumb but the two brothers fits. Tell me how I'm wrong.— mephisto - I guess the author missed "The Words".— Jabey
- Gay marriage is not the same as marrying a family member or an animal. It just isn't. Those things are called incest and bestiality and have nothing to do with being gay.— sashalily
- Should the government be allowed to tell you you can't do it? How does incest affect anyone other than the "couple"? The only way out of this mess is to simply say that the government needs to get out of marriage.— operagost
- There's so much ignorance and name-calling and flat-out BS here it's incredible that some of you manage to dress yourselves every day.
NO ONE IS EQUATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WITH INCEST, or BESTIALITY, or POLYGAMY.
For all of human history, the word 'marriage' was defined as a union between one man and one woman. That's the definition we ALL learned, so don't parse words. That's what it meant. So the efforts afoot now are not to CHANGE that definition, but to REMOVE it. Once it's removed, the same space will be filled -- by something else. Irons, Santorum, and many others have noted that. Once you have gone ahead and made the decision to remove the definition from the word, what does the word now mean? TODAY, same-sex marriage proponents think that their definition will fill the void (Nature abhors a vacuum): Two people of any gender who are in a loving relationship. OK. All other are saying is that once you have made THAT definition change, what's to stop the NEXT definition change from happening? Seriously -- no sarcasm here at all. Reproductive/genetic problems aside, there would be NO serious impediment to removing the new definition of marriage next year, and replacing it with a union of two siblings. Or three adults. Or five adults and two goats.
The point is that one should undertake VERY seriously any attempt to remove definitions which are societal; once done, you'll see that doing it again is even easier -- and even easier the time after that, and so on. I could cite many such examples in the language, but I've rambled on long enough.— critias
