Jeremy Irons still insisting that its 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.
“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.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pLHLnpmirJOdxm%2BvzqZma3FgaYFze8meqZ6lqZS2s7vNrJasrJmhuaC1zaygrKyZo7SgwMeaq5ihpKissLrLspaippOawLWryJ%2BWrKedmryvsb6gnK2rj6W%2FprPNmqWtZw%3D%3D