Jeremy Irons’ Gay Remarks Include Incest SpeculationBy: Sean Patterson - April 5, 2013
With the tipping point on gay marriage already reached and even conservative commentators such as Bill O’Reilly admitting that gay marriage supporters have a “compelling argument,” it now seems inevitable that gay marriage is on the fast-track to legality.
As the arguments continue to rage online, at least one person is looking ahead to what gay marriage will mean for marriage in the future. Actor Jeremy Irons this week appeared on HuffPost Live and discussed his views on gay marriage.
The Oscar-winning British actor expressed his concerns over what changing marriage might mean in future courtrooms. Irons pointed out that in Britain gay couples could enter into a “union” that would give them rights of marriage without the name. He then goes on to explain in a convoluted way what he foresees happening.
“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,” said Irons. “I just worry about that.”
The actor stated that he thinks “the lawyers are gonna have a field day with same-sex marriage.” As an example of what he worries about, Irons brought up taxes and incest. In particular, he worried that, since he doesn’t consider same-sex incest to be incest, a father could marry his son to pass on his estate tax-free after death.
“It’s not incest between men,” said Irons. “Incest is there to protect us from having inbreeding, but men don’t breed…so incest wouldn’t cover them.”
Though his rambling comments sparked even more online debate, Irons himself stated that he doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other about gay marriage, and that “it’s lovely to have someone to love.”
(Image courtesy Avda/Wikimedia Commons)