Jeremy Irons’ Gay Remarks Include Incest Speculation

    April 5, 2013
    Sean Patterson
    Comments are off for this post.

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)

  • Laird Bean

    I agree with Mr. Irons. If marriage is not between male and female (as it has been throughout the ages), then there is no limit to it’s application or definition. His premise and his logic are absolutely accurate, as are his concerns! Perfectly reasonable!

  • jscottu

    The left is now trying to say that a “father and son would not be able to get married because that would be incest”. Wrong. Any good lawyer could tear that argument apart by pointing out that they could not produce a child…therefore there is no reason to prevent it. Then the father could pass his property to the son tax free.

  • Garry

    Marriage should stay as GOD intended it. One MAN and one WOMAN. To have sex with someone of your own sex is NOT NORMAL! And we should not pass laws that say it is! That is what a same sex marriage law would be saying, that this is normal and it’s OK. Sorry, but it’s NOT OK with me!

    • Leia

      Easy solution. YOU don’t get married to another man and YOU don’t have sex with other men. That way you and your God are fine. Not everyone has the same religious beliefs as you do.
      Who defines what is “normal”? Not every straight couple has what most would call a normal relationship. Should they be made to divorce because you and your God think they are not normal?
      The only thing most same-sex couples I know want is to be left alone to live their lives and have the same LEGAL rights as heterosexual married couples. No one said anything about a herd of gay people rushing into your church to be married.

  • Chris Vogel

    A remarkably stupid thing to say, since all canon and civil law governing marriage, whether same-sex marriage is allowed or not, prohibits marriage between those too closely related, such as parent and child. Presumably, then, this is what prevents heterosexual men from marrying their daughters to gain whatever advantage Irons refers to. His assertion is, nevertheless, typical of those by opponents of same-sex marriage, who prefer hysteria and foolishness to reality.

  • http://yahoo.com Adrian

    It is not about incest or an estate tax. It is a simple civil right that should be given to everyone who lives in the United States. It is our ability to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Just like it is your right to flash us all your one sided view and how is this going to stop you from being married or living your life as you see fit. Furthermore, sex and marriage between one woman and one man and the whole greater than thou attitude we dont need. So that should also mean that there should be some kind of law keeping a man from having an affair on his wife. Or you may be the cheating bastard an it just dose not count for you??

  • larry groff

    does this mean that if a man or woman is sterile, they are free to marry relatives because they could not produce a child? if his incest logic is perfectly accurate, than it sounds like that’s what he is saying