Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Jeremy Irons: Same-sex marriage could lead to fathers marrying their sons for tax purposes

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Wau~ 0_o

  2. Like thousands of other from his ‘class’, he’s totally missed the point. This is about ‘EQUALITY’. You can iron out the detail later. But let’s stop treating gay relationships as if they are between second-class citizens and afford everyone the dignity of EQUALITY!

    1. Quite right, but I don’t think misunderstanding the implications of equal marriage is limited to the middle classes – in fact I don’t really see what class has to do with it.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 5:09pm

      If the tables were turned on the bigots forcing them to accept CPs only and banning them from marriage while the rest of us were allowed to marry, Irons would be among the first to scream discrimination. Then we could fire back and say, well, they are the same as marriage, just a question of semantics, so shut up and accept second class citizenship because that’s all you’re worthy of.

  3. The man has gone down in my estimations!

    1. PantoHorse 4 Apr 2013, 12:13pm

      Yup. What an utter cock! He’s also playing into the hands of the bestiality brigade when he says ‘living with another animal, whether it be a husband or a dog, is great’. They’ll be citing this interview as proof next. (<– I'm only half serious about that). Really though, it is a pretty peculiar view.

    2. Just what I thought. What a moron. Tim nice but dim.

  4. Really, what a buffoon – sometimes it’s better if actors just shut up, especially if they are really clueless about what they’re yammering about.
    _________

    Incest: sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other; the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

    Origin: Middle English: from Latin incestus, incestum ‘unchastity, incest’, from in- ‘not’ + castus ‘chaste’ [OED online]

  5. Eh…….hahaha, there’s no point even getting the slightest bit irritated by this as it’s just hilariously stupid! As if anyone would take what he says seriously..fathers marrying sons, or it not being incest because they cannot biologically reproduce. Good point – I’m sure many fathers will be thinking that ‘now marriage for same-sex couples is introduced, I can go marry my son! Tax-free estates yipee!!’ Lol

    1. Besides it would be even easier to get a civil partnership then. Less controversial than marriage for sure and already available to all those parents who every day flock to get civilly partnered with their same-sex offsprings.

  6. Locus Solus 4 Apr 2013, 11:26am

    Awww not Jeremy’s Iron :.(
    Sucks that he feels this way, I actually liked him. Oh well. Die Hard 3 won’t be the same.

  7. Jock S. Trap 4 Apr 2013, 11:26am

    Absolutely ridiculous. He clearly misses the point of marriage and instead succumbs to the bigoted idiot point of view. It’s just pathetic.

    How the uneducated will fall.

  8. Filth. Now I can’t watch any film he’s in.

  9. Incest laws are also to prevent misuse of family power, especially of abuse by parents against children because of undue influence. Same reason why relationships between students and teachers are prohibited in professional standards, and may also be illegal. Emotional manipulation is too easy where there is a power relationship between the older and younger person. Even if Woody Allen’s relationship with his step-daughter was just legal it was morally wrong and icky.

  10. What, so why hasn’t a father married his daughter or a mother married her son for the same reason, based on his logic this should already be possible.

    What a shame, I thought he was better than this.

    1. Precisely, this is the problem with this tired old slippery slope fallacy, you have to clearly demonstrate a causal link.
      By his logic you could state that dads could already marry their daughters for tax purposes.
      You could also claim that when Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus it opened the floodgates to being forced to share the front seat of a bus with a hippo.
      Or would that constitute a completely seperate piece of legislation not linked to racial equality to be judged on its own merits?

      1. Wait, you are saying father’s DON’T marry their daughters for tax reasons? Wow.

    2. Thanks for saving me the trouble! What an instantaneous logic fail on his part! Shows you that you CLEARLY that bigotry is, indeed, nothing more than vicious stupidity.

  11. Craig Nelson 4 Apr 2013, 11:35am

    I was going to comment but sometimes the thing you’re commenting on is just too silly

  12. Wasn’t this inheritance issue covered when CPs were introduced? Seem to recall someone arguing that 2 spinster sisters living in the same house should be allowed to have a CP so that if one died the other would not be stung for inheritance tax. But clearly not well explained Mr Irons and confusing tax issues with equality issues.

    1. yes, i seem to remember the daily mail saying that the spinster sisters should be able to but the gays shouldn’t.

  13. you been on the old sauce or in need of medication? What a dumb statement to make.

  14. gay dolphin 4 Apr 2013, 12:06pm

    Few years back I watched a movie based on the life of the incredible diva Maria Callas. Jeremy Irons played a gay character in it. I loved the movie and loved him in it. For some reason his character left an impression!
    I have to say i like him as an actor, but he really comes across as stupid here. Very strange comments made by him indeed.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 12:10pm

      He probably signed the C4M petition.

    2. He got his big break playing Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited. Ryder was in a relationship with Sebastian Flyte for the first half of the story before turning his attention to Flyte’s sister, Julia.

  15. Here’s from a man whose already on marriage number 2….

    From where I’m sitting Jeremy, looks like you can’t get enough of marriage yourself, why therefore deny the same entitlements to others?

    As for your concerns about fathers marrying sons…..

    Yes, I can just see the queues round the registry offices now..

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 12:08pm

    Ironic that he’s starring in the Borgias, a family known for incest.

    You can bet religion is in the mix. I never much cared for him, now I know why. Overrated too! The not so subtle reference to living with another animal be it a husband or a dog implying bestiality and sex doesn’t matter at all. Well, Irons, what did you have children for if sex isn’t important? Bloody bigoted fool.

  17. You’ve pissed on your chips Jeremy….what a wanker.

  18. Say it ain’t so Jeremy!! :(

  19. I would love to know how many legal loopholes this man exploits to avoid paying tax. I hope his accountant is cleverer than he is.

  20. Just another typically stupid statement from another typically stupid actor. Seriously, won’t these people ever learn to just keep their mouths shut? Though I didn’t realise he’s been hiding in the closet all these years.

    1. I believe you’ve told us you’re an actor yourself, is that not so?

  21. huw thomas 4 Apr 2013, 12:15pm

    Quote of his “[on Lolita (1997)] 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”!!

    1. So he won’t be marrying his son then? After 14 they’re past their prime.

      Boy, this is one sick man.

  22. Samsterdam 4 Apr 2013, 12:18pm

    Sure..! Just like fathers who have been marrying their daughters!?

  23. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Apr 2013, 12:39pm

    And it is absolutely a well-known 100% totally established fact that since same-sex marriage became legal in Canada sons and fathers have been marrying in their millions just like there is no tomorrow! Some are even in a threesome with their dog!!

  24. What a half wit. I thought he was from Hollyoaks or someit , did not realise he won an oscar, and now will never bother to find out. Does he have a daughter, because that would be disturbing from the insight into how he views things.

  25. Carl Rowlands 4 Apr 2013, 12:55pm

    I feel numb at this mans comments. If in doubt …say nothing. He has just given those people who peddle this argument a stick to beat us. Silly, silly man! He really is an embarrassment!

  26. Irons said: “It seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name. I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is.”

    If that is what he believes then even he sees that marriage is not the same as a civil union. It must be more than just about the name if there is any impact on marriage as a concept. That said, I still can’t get my head around how enabling marriage equality changes ANYTHING in heterosexual marriage!

    There are some daft people with daft ideas out there! :)

  27. Yes, Italian red wine is delicious. It appears to be flowing quite liberally on the set of the Borgias, a show that has now been genuinely “debased” by this wally.

  28. Sister Mary Clarence 4 Apr 2013, 1:08pm

    “Jeremy Irons: Same-sex marriage could lead to fathers marrying their sons for tax purposes”

    However what it is unlikely to lead to Jeremy, is anyone marrying you – you continue to be absolutely vile

  29. Irons has 2 sons. How will he choose?

    1. Why should he have to choose. Don’t be so couplist. LOL

    2. Quote of his “[on Lolita (1997)] 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”!!

  30. If your career is flagging, make a preposterous statement. What an idiot you are Mr Irons

  31. Paula Thomas 4 Apr 2013, 1:28pm

    Now this is the way to make a fool of yourself. The answer is the if this were true there’d be nothin to stop a father marrying his daughter for tax purposes now!!!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 1:37pm

      Quite. Incest is illegal in most western countries. I don’t think any British government, Labour or Tory would legislate for incest since there isn’t, hasn’t and never will be a demand for it. Even if there were, I very much doubt it would ever pass. Why is it I wonder that when it comes to equal marriage, incest and bestiality always seem to be high on the opposition’s list and usually alluding to males?

  32. When he says

    “I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.”

    He reveals his heteroexism

    When he says

    “Could a father not marry his son?”

    He reveals a rather hysterical homophobic projection, which you only tend to associate with extremist religious people.

  33. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 1:33pm

    My suspicions are right. He’s a devout catholic, enough said. God is always in the mix when it’s about equal marriage. Another delusional overrated twat of an actor. Isn’t it revealing that almost everyone in opposition to EM throw out the incest/bestiality card in some form or other, and it’s almost always about males, rarely do they mention heterosexual incest in the marriage debate. If you look at the history of incest, much of it has been heterosexual in nature.

    1. I didn’t know he was an RC. How sooo unsurprising. Let’s dig a deep pit and full it with Catholics and Daily Mail readers.

  34. I feel very smug. I’ve heard this man speak before and formed the view years ago that he’s actually rather stupid. I’m right as usual. How ironic that he played Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited many years ago. It was an amazing and very subtle rendering of Evelyn Waugh’s novel that dealt with, among other things, love between two men: Ryder and Sebastian Flyte. The whole thing must have been utterly lost on this complete ninny.

    1. I don’t think so, it was a doomed love after all – the only way imaginable for the dreary Waugh, who converted to Catholicism partly, it’s said, because he was afraid of his capacity for same-sex attraction.

      1. I was probably naively seduced by it. I was young when I saw it.

  35. He obviously needs to understand more about the issue. It sounds like he could have an open mind but he needs to be convinced about certain things. Shocking really that an actor would be so ignorant of the discriminatory reasons for gay marriage and not civil unions. There are so many gays in theater you’d think he’d be more informed.

    1. He has SUCH an open mind that his brain actually fell out.
      That’s the only excuse I can think of for the idiocy of his comments.

  36. another idiot.
    as if men care able to marry their daughters.
    he should stop using drugs!!

  37. I’m stuck. I have a son and daughter, 2 cats and a civil partner. I’m going to get in touch with my vile Tory MP and ask her to propose a private member’s bill that will enable me to marry all of them at the same time. Come to think of it I’ve always been strangely drawn to the Ikea bookcase in my study so perhaps I can marry it too. What can be wrong with that? If I can marry my bloke then everything’s up for grabs. Jeez!!!

  38. I am constantly amazed at where these loons pop out from. It feels like April Fool’s Day is becoming April Fool’s Month.

    The good thing is that his comments are so ludicrously off the scale, every sane person hearing or reading this will dismiss him as a fruitcake.

  39. Marriage equality debases marriage…
    Wow. Who would have thought that Jeremy Irons is a homophobic bigot?

    Very disappointing.

  40. CH Brighton 4 Apr 2013, 2:02pm

    This is the man who would not countenance that the relationship between Sebastian Flyte and Charles Ryder (the role played by Jeremy Irons in the 1981 ITV dramatisation of Brideshead Revisited) was of a homosexual nature. This, despite the nature of that relationship being an ongoing topic of debate and open to such an interpretation. Methinks he has a problem with us.

  41. What a pointless statement !?!

  42. I have a vision of a secret room deep in theVatican vaults where some evil Cardinals are making up this shit for distribution to brainless believers across the world.

    I think they really get off on getting them to say the craziest of stuff – the higher the profile, the greater their enjoyment.

  43. Is it just me, or is he in a very subtle way comparing same-sex marriage not only to incest but also to bestiality? YUCK.
    Maybe that was not his intention but it sure sounds so.

  44. Why can’t Actor – who until today I admired Keep their Feckin mouths shut – now I have to add Irons to increasing list of Actors I cannot watch – What a stupid ignorant thing to say especially from one who gain success from playing gay!

  45. Actors should only speak lines that have been written for them by intelligent writers.

    1. Very true, Pavlos! I once worked with countless actors and found most of them to be unthinking.

  46. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 2:33pm

    Now I’m just waiting for him to back-pedal but probably too much to ask for. He’ll deny his homophobic and a bigot of course saying he has gay friends. I hope one of his sons turns out to be gay. Karma can often be a real bitch for bigots.

  47. I think it is quite positive, to be honest, that Mr Irons has been able to have a successful career despite being quite obviously stupid x small mercies and all that x also, I am a little fearful that people will catch on to the true reason that I am living with a cocker spaniel……. I am waiting for the return of the marriage tax allowance at wish point I shall be dragging all four of his rather large, fluffy, feet down the aisle

    1. Funny. That really made me chuckle. Please note: the breed of your dog and Jeremy seem to have something in common!

    2. LMAO!! That made me cry with tears of laughter!

  48. Andrew S. 4 Apr 2013, 2:44pm

    As a divorced man I can’t really comment about the “sanctity” of marriage.

    His is also a supporter for alternative medicines which is also good sign for stupid.

    Stick to acting.

  49. I think it notable that the example he gave mentions fathers and sons – but not mothers and daughters. While I don’t think he’s suggesting pedophilia, I do think it’s the tax shelter version of fear of two men having sex…

    Don’t know why but I didn’t expect this from him. Add me to the list whose assessment of him has plummeted.

  50. Jeremy Irons is now the Mel Gibson of the UK.

    What a homophobic twat!

  51. Me and my partner regularly breed like rabbits so this guy is talking sh1t

  52. colin Hull 4 Apr 2013, 3:31pm

    Silly Old Fart.Has he tried marrying his daughter ? The law would take a dim view. Equality of a sort . You cannot marry either

  53. Mr. Irons just said that it may “debase” marriage if the definition includes same-sex couples. Mr. Irons, drop dead.

  54. Charliie-O 4 Apr 2013, 3:50pm

    It’s even worse than Pinknews is reporting. (Are you trying to cover up for him, PN?)

    PN omitted this little gem uttered by Mr. Irons: “I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.”

    Our being able to marry apparently would “debase” marriage in his eyes.

    1. I do think an even greater fault lies with whoever it was who asked him the question. I mean, who on earth should care what Jeremy bloody Irons thinks of equal marriage?

      The foolish man really should have bigger things to worry about, his own foolishness for example.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 4:21pm

      For someone already in his second marriage, a bit rich if you ask me. F_cking hypocrite.

  55. I have always admired Jeremy Irons as an actor and can not believe what I just read. He works in an industry that is full of openly gay men and women and yet he sounds homophobic in some way. I personally always thought he himself were gay.

  56. How do you know? There’s nothing in law to enable it yet either. Fathers can’t make their sons their civil partners, why should it be any different with marriage?

    1. YOU PATHETIC IGNORANT FOOL

    2. An original take, but perhaps I didn’t make myself clear (enough): I simply meant that as men can’t as yet marry men, or women women, there is no point speculating as to what exactly will eventually be allowed (or, if you prefer, not prevented) within the category of same-sex marriage.

      What prevents a father and son being civilly partnered? Please state in what way you imagine the law would be different with marriage.

      1. “I asked you first”? I will take that as an attempt to avoid admitting you have no argument. And thanks for providing evidence in writing that your capacity for reasoning is of the prep-school playground variety.

  57. The Kitty Channel 4 Apr 2013, 4:09pm

    It is generally better to hold one’s tongue and be thought a fool than to speak and remove any doubt.

  58. Garry Cassell 4 Apr 2013, 4:18pm

    F***, aren’t you brilliant?? You came up with this all on your own…you should get an award for this….

  59. seems that some people have to dig really deep to come up with the weirdest possible out comes

  60. I had much more respect for you than that Jeremy

    1. Dear boy, just memorize your lines from a script and shut up about everything else.
      Oh well, we’ll always have Brideshead.

  61. YOU NEED TO SHUT UP – YOU APPALLING EXAMPLE OF HUMANITY – WHY NOT JUST BEND OVER AND TAKE A COCK -YOU ARE CLEARLY BEGGING FOR IT WITH THIS EXCESSIVE SELF LOATHING -

    1. Dave North 4 Apr 2013, 5:04pm

      Just ignore it.

      It is too stupid to engage in adult conversation.

      1. Are you, like, the biggest the troll ever?

    2. Hey, come on, give credit where credit’s due, at least dear old Keith has at last admitted same-sex marriage will become legal (even if he doesn’t know what incest laws cover, poor fellow, he’s not quite as well up on law as he thinks), although he no doubt imagines it’s a development that’s going to be followed by a great darkness over all the earth, not to mention plagues of frogs and locusts and I daresay a global flood as well.

    3. You appear to have no awareness of irony, Keith. Look it up.

  62. Nobody has successfully rebutted the suggestion that you are a pineapple.
    Currently, people aren’t pineapples. After same sex marriage is made legal, that would change since there would be no legal basis to deny people the right to become a pineapple. Since incest laws don’t apply to pineapples, there would be nothing to stop you marring yourself.

    1. Bless. Just as you have failed to specify what prevents a man from having a civil union with his son for tax or other purposes and why it should be any different with marriage. Never mind Keith me old mucker, your capacity to reason is more than abundantly clear to all. I’m sure you’ll find it reassuring to know that what is evident to others doesn’t tally with what’s ‘evident’ to you.

    2. Jock S. Trap 5 Apr 2013, 11:45am

      Your arguments bare no relevance since no country that has marriage equality has allowed incestial marriage. No record of such a marriage, your just a very flawed person with Very flawed arguments.

  63. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 5:03pm

    Bloody fool. Incest is ILLEGAL under British law. Are you really that delusional to believe that the British government would legislate for that? This same fallacious claim was made during the CP debate. Thus far, not one case or demand for incestuous or polygamous heterosexual marriage recorded in the UK. Incest laws apply to everyone, gay or straight, except for first heterosexual blood cousins. Any legal expert in the UK could easily debunk Irons’ nonsense including your own. Why don’t you contact Lord Pannick, QC and report back here with your findings?

    1. How fascinating – please direct us to the legal definition of incest as requiring evidence of penile-vaginal intercourse.

      1. I am not prepared to take your word for it. Please provide a link or a reputable quote with source.

        I take it you then admit your frenzied references to father-son “incest” last year (oh yes, I remember – who could forget?) were wholly inaccurate?

  64. Such an a–hole.

  65. Christopher Coleman 4 Apr 2013, 5:21pm

    Now we know why his acting has always been second rate.

  66. This from an actor who lives in an Irish castle to escape UK taxes!!!!

  67. Liam the God 4 Apr 2013, 5:33pm

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

  68. Liam the God 4 Apr 2013, 5:34pm

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

  69. Actors are often mistaken for intelligent people because they recite clever lines written for them by writers. Irons shows that he needs other people to write his lines in real life as well, so that he doesn’t spout complete and utter rubbish.

  70. Early onset senility is a sad thing, & ugly when played out in public. I wish him all the best, and hope wherever they are putting him has nice, soft walls.

  71. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 7:01pm

    Wrong again. An 2004 amendment to the British Marriage Act 1949 specifically prohibits a father marrying his son and the same sex couples bill (CPs) will not alter what is already enshrined in law. Therefore, the fact that a father and son or even a mother and daughter are prohibited from marriage implies incest.

    1. Fack you prat – what straight man comfortable with his own sexuality wastes time returning to a gay news site (time and time again) prattling on about ‘deviants’!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 10:13pm

        He’s not straight, Bob, believe me, but a very sick deeply closeted gay man addicted to a deviant and perverse religion by choice.

    2. Why is it weird? The subject under discussion is equal marriage in the UK.

      And how can it be illegal under European law if Spain and The Netherlands already have equal marriage?

      Poor old Keith, worsted at every turn. Never mind pet, at least you believe in yourself.

      1. By “deviant marriage” do you mean second or third marriages where the original partner is still alive?

        Again, I am obviously not prepared to take your [far from reliable] word on Spanish and Dutch marital law. If you’re going to make these absurd claims, provide reputable links or quotes with sources to back them up. Examples of such marriages would also help.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 10:08pm

      Weird comment, not. I’m not interested in the world issue and Irons isn’t alluding to that. Under the 1949 Marriage Act, no father or mother is permitted to marry his or her children, full stop. The majority of the British people would never support incestuous marriages and that includes gay people including myself. None of us would support it. I reiterate my challenge to you. Contact Lord Pannick, QC, an expert in the matter. Report back to us of his findings with a copy of his response posted here.

      1. Jean-Paul 5 Apr 2013, 4:49am

        Nice one, Robert.

        “There are men who, for want of the right genes, the right upbringing, or the right ideas, cannot possibly be expected to live peacefully with the rest of us.” … Sam Harris

  72. Chris Vogel 4 Apr 2013, 7:18pm

    Whether criminal incest, or not, father-son relationships violate–and preclude marriage in–the standard degree-of-relationship prohibitions present in all canon and civil law about marriage (of every kind). Irons just doesn’t know what he is talking about, which probably becomes from being an actor.

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Apr 2013, 11:51am

      You miss the basic point, you idiot. Being ‘homosexual’ is not illegal.

      You argument is lost in your own vile bigotry.

      1. Jock S. Trap 6 Apr 2013, 10:01am

        If you say so dear but just remember it is only YOU that is obsessed with Gay sex and it is only YOU that is obsessed with incest.

  73. Poor dear Jeremy. So sad. One can only hope he gets the care he needs.

  74. This is the man who owns a pink castle in the west of Ireland

  75. .....Paddyswurds 4 Apr 2013, 7:31pm

    This ejits reasoning is as suspect as his terrible acting.He won’t be marrying his son as his son detests him. He should stick to knitting….

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Apr 2013, 9:59pm

      If I were his son, I’d be scared knowing my father is waxing poetic at the notion of a father marrying his son. Rather creepy.

  76. Andrew Robertson 4 Apr 2013, 7:35pm

    twat

  77. You really are the most pathetic and funniest troll I’ve ever read on pink news. I do feel sorry for you though, I always feel sorry for the mentally challenged.

  78. Simple: don’t give tax relief to married couples, don’t tax them more than singles.

    End of problem.

    1. Wow, that bee is really buzzing around your festive bonnet now isn’t it, Keith lovey?

  79. “When reminded about laws preventing incest, Irons replied: “It’s not incest between men”, because “incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.” ”

    Brilliant. Stupidity knows no bounds.

    1. Civil Partnership between close relatives is already banned- why would equal marriage change that? Twat.

  80. I really fancy you Keith – everytime you post on here, it really turns me on and I keep imagening you naked and the nasty things we could get up to. Please keep posting as much as possible

  81. Jean-Paul 5 Apr 2013, 1:25am

    Why take for granted that a son – or one of the sons – would marry his father?

    Academic if you ask me.

  82. GingerlyColors 5 Apr 2013, 7:54am

    For crying out loud, Irons, we are calling for the right to marriage equality, not incest!

    1. Jock S. Trap 6 Apr 2013, 10:04am

      Your a Very thick individual aren’t you!! and no that wasn’t a question.

  83. Jeremy is squeaking his wheels…what could he be thinking? say it isn’t so Jeremy ’cause you know what they say about squeaky wheels…

  84. David Myers 5 Apr 2013, 11:43am

    I ignored this when I first saw it around 5 days ago because I thought it was an April Fool’s comment. I was partially right – he totally is an April Fool!

  85. … there are many men around the World who are lucky enough to conceal their true sexual identities–Jeremy Irons being one of them–he is quite possibly Gay–and when saying that fathers would pervert the marriage status by marring their sons is quite ridiculous! Because anyone within the law would and should see through such a silly facade.

  86. floridahank 5 Apr 2013, 6:16pm

    His comment, ” equal marriage legislation could be manipulated to allow fathers to pass on their estates to their sons without being taxed.” poses a very interesting question.
    With all the changes being made in redefiing the meaning of many situations, I don’t think the above concluslion is totally out of the question. Since when is any law “written in stone” and can’t be changed in time, especially when there is power and money behind the change. Nothing is forever, as 007 said.

    1. ‘Power and money’? You seriously believe gay people seeking equality are backed by significant quantities of power and money, do you?

      Bless your sweet little cotton socks. Do tell us what other conspiracy theories you subscribe to.

      1. Talk about avoiding answering the question…

        Never mind, Keith me old m…ucker. Have you met Hank yet? I’m sure you’d get on like a house on fire. Except of course he’s a religionist and you believe only you are capable of interpreting the bible correctly, is that not so?

  87. Tina Best 5 Apr 2013, 8:54pm

    Wow, Jeremy Irons is a homophobe? Disappointing, I liked Brideshead Revisited a lot, but he’s lost my respect and interest. Once you say something like this you’re a whacko in my book.

    1. I liked Brideshead Revisited too but it must be said that the author was a repressed gay man…married and a miserable convert to Catholicism. Talk about conflicted! BR presents that misery, the emotional squalor of traditional British society at the time. It is not sympathetic toward LGBT, not by a long shot. So just because Irons was in it doesn’t mean that he will possess any insight or compassion, unfortunately. Like his character, he seems to be perversely insensible.

    2. no one is remotely interested in your vile ravings you pathetic excuse for a human being!

      1. Name-calling all to aptly sums up the nursery-schoolyard level of your discourse, Keith.

    3. Tina Best 6 Apr 2013, 1:47pm

      “Just because you agree with segregation you’re a racist.” Yeah, what a crazy world we live in.

      Opposition to same-sex marriage is a product of an irrational disapproval of homosexuality. That’s homophobia. And your comment is homophobic too. You’re openly homophobic. You are doing it right now through your comment.

      Do you disagree? By distancing yourself from homophobia you are framing yourself as non-homophobic. But you call LGBT people ‘deviants’ – is this not evidence of hatred of homosexuals, which you define as homophobia? Even if it’s not, how do you think the definition of homophobia appeared and evolved?

      You seem to think homophobia is at least nominally bad enough in order to distance yourself from it, and employ an extremely rigid reading of the dictionary definition of homophobia in order to exclude yourself from being homophobic. Does that mean your hatred of homosexuals is the rational kind? I’m a reasonable person, let me know what the reasons are some time.

      1. Irrational disapproval of homosexuality is not a definition of homophobia

        Actually, that is exactly what it is. How extraordinary, yet revealing, that you don’t know that.

        http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobia

  88. I saw the video of the interview and felt sorry for him. He comes across as very… simple. Not much brain activity. I wish we would stop expecting actors to be thinkers. They are famous for their ability to act, not reflect. This society’s cult of celebrity leads us to expect more from them but they are a bit like puppets, they repeat what’s written in their script and when they have to think for themselves, just like any other regular person, they can come out short. Obviously this is not true of all of them. Angelina Jolie, to name one, is an extremely smart woman. Jeremy Irons has shown us that he’s not in the same league. I’m sure having had the time to think about it, he’s now kicking himself for saying what he did. As he should.

  89. Do you have psychic abilities, Keith (along with the psychotic ones)? You seem to have spent the last 2 days predicting what will happen when same-sex marriage becomes legal* after all.

    * Or, since you quaintly believe laws can only prevent, for your benefit that should be ‘when same-sex marriage is no longer illegal’.

    1. Tsk tsk Keith old fruit, you seem to be getting a little agitated. Don’t like being hoist in your own petard do you? Are you really incapable of noticing how often you answer a question with a question (quite often on a completely unrelated subject), just as you’ve done here?

      And you’re genuinely positing the theory that without the concept of sin there can be no right or wrong, are you? Oh, bless.

      1. Another quaintly original take, for someone who so loudly proclaims his intelligence.

        Sin is defined by the OED as an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. You might care to note that the concept of ‘divine law’ equalling justice didn’t exist in the ancient non-Judeo-Christian world – I take it you consider all Greek moral philosophy to be irrelevant then?

        If you seriously consider that only people who believe in deities can discern right from wrong, then I’m afraid further discussion is utterly pointless.

    2. Sweetie-pie, let me make this simple enough for you: your concept of what is ‘correct’ is (and I’m being gentle here) usually somewhat wide of the mark.

      And maybe you too could answer a question, if I keep it simple enough for you: why do you keep bringing up what may or could happen? You are clearly not, I think it’s fair to assume, a lawmaker of any sort, or even remotely close to being one. What, apart from the moral outrage you seem to require for sustenance, is the point of all your speculation?

      1. And I repeat (since you avoid answering the question): what, apart from the moral outrage you seem to require for sustenance, is the point of all your speculation?

  90. Dude, why do you think homosexuality is a sin? ‘Cause it’s in the Bible? Who cares?

    1. Homosexuals do not believe in the concept of sin

      Keith O Ever So Correct One, as you are not your god (at least if you are you’re pretty rubbish at communicating), kindly provide your authority for that sweeping statement. I require your proof for your contention that not a single homosexual person in the world believes in the concept of sin, with all sources and personal research duly listed. A summary of the causality would also be useful.

      1. Oh I see, when you make a sweeping statement it’s just “general” And requires no proof, but when others do so it isn’t? How delightfully original and revealingly juvenile.

        And how exactly do you know that “as a group” we don’t believe in sin (or for that matter anything else), since you claim elsewhere that you don’t know a single homosexual (having clearly never developed the ability to analyse your own behaviour)? Or is that just another “general statement” that reveals your capacity to recognise facts?

  91. .In legal terms, without male female intercourse, there is no incest. [Keith]

    Make up your mind Keith, we don’t want to give the impression you’re a tad, shall we say, confused, now do we?

    In any event, I have no intention on embarking on a discussion on intrafamilial sex with you, I find the subject – and your drooling obsession with it – distasteful. You can make whatever assumptions about my opinions as you wish, I think there is a great deal that’s “apparent to all” here and I’m not in the least bit worried by it (except perhaps for people thinking me a fool for being civil to you). Though you can also kindly quote where I “have already conceded that it is morally wrong” since I have no recollection of any such concession

    So I repeat (since you’ve now avoided answering the question twice): what, apart from the moral outrage you seem to require for sustenance, is the point of all your speculation about the ramifications of a law that hasn’t been finalised yet?

    1. Poor dear sweet deluded little man(?), did I really say I find incest (which you’ve already told us is impossible between same-sex partners) “tasteful”? Careful reading of the above would actually indicate the opposite, don’t you think, my pet? Do you now understand the meaning of the prefix dis- in English?

      And I repeat (since you’ve now avoided answering the question three times): what, apart from the moral outrage you seem to require for sustenance, is the point of all your speculation about the ramifications of a law that hasn’t been finalised yet?

      1. Oh, you mean you were wrong? Is that an admission?

        And I repeat (since you’ve now avoided answering the question four times): what, apart from the moral outrage you seem to require for sustenance, is the point of all your speculation about the ramifications of a law that hasn’t been finalised yet?

  92. oh ffs, will people not engage with keith, the brainless confused cretin. He needs psychological help, not a conversation in the comments on pink news. Poor fella.

    1. He does, and he is. But occasionally it’s amusing, if uncharitable, to expose his sort of hysterical delusion.

      1. Actually, I’m the only one who’s bothering to pay any attention to you at all.

        But OK then pet, perhaps it could, using your particular, individual definition of immoral behaviour. By the same token, the world could end in a month, half of humanity could be wiped out in the next viral epidemic, the world could enter into another mini-Ice-Age in the next 2 decades. What exactly is the point of discussing these possibilities with such febrile anxiety? Even if you identify genuine threats, in what way do you think you will achieve anything by obsessing about them on the PN discussion threads?

        I expect, in your narcissism, you interpret the extreme down-marking of your contributions as some sort of twisted validation, but what do you really think you’re achieving?

  93. My post from yesterday afternoon seems to have vanished for some reason. I did answer, Keith lovey – it’s above: In any event, I have no intention on embarking on a discussion on intrafamilial sex with you, I find the subject – and your drooling obsession with it – distasteful. I’m all too aware of your usual, somewhat schoolboyish, mode of arguing along the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose principle to engage with your obvious leading questions.

    And since neither of us is going to shift from our opposing views on choosing Iron Age writings in Hebrew from the Eastern Mediterranean as the ultimate authority when it comes to morals, can you answer my own question (also above)? What exactly is the point of discussing these possibilities with such febrile anxiety? Even if you identify genuine threats, in what way do you think you will achieve anything by obsessing about them on the PN discussion threads?

    1. Poor dear old Keith, your only ability to “defend” your views is to say “because [my translation of] the bible says so.” I’m glad for you that you think this is an adequately well-thought-out position; however, for those who don’t take a quite such a simplistic view of most moral or ethical issues, it is somewhat, erm, underdeveloped (I am, of course, being polite as always).

      Your motives for so relentlessly trying to twist any subject around to a discussion of male intrafamilial sex are fairly obvious; however, it would be interesting to know how exactly you’d try to spin it. You’re shrewd to wriggle out of answering, really.

      1. I asked why you wriggled out of explaining why you’re so anxious to bring any given subject (or so it appears) around to the subject of what you used to call gay incest – and, by implication, why someone who claims not to be or know anyone gay and loathes homosexuality seems to spend the better part of his days trying to provoke a reaction (or so it appears) on a gay news website. What or whom are you trying to convince, and of what?

        Calling me Mr Perfect is adolescent sophistry and should be beneath you. Clearly if I don’t believe in divine law I can’t believe in sin, can I? You should know by now that it’s best not to make assumptions about people based on what they’ve not said. And again, I would recommend Richard Holloway’s Godless Morality.

        Incidentally, do you consider all Buddhists to be immoral and indeed incapable of morals because they don’t believe in the concept of sin?

  94. No. I will stick to the OED’s definition: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. In my experience the word ‘sin’ is not used independently of a religious context. In what way is the word immoral inadequate for describing something that isn’t moral?

  95. I suggest you give up waiting then lovey, for the reasons explained many time above. There must be a number of more important things you could do.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all