Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Jeremy Irons: My claims about father-son same-sex marriages were mischievous but valid

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Yet again I think the PN headline is itself mischievous in choosing the parts of Irons’ statement to highlight.

    1. I’m not really sure why I’ve been marked down for that statement. Irons’ original comment was ill-thought-out and foolish, but I think the gist of his follow-up statement, whether PR guff or not, is actually rather civilised – and more twittish than actually homophobic. I think we should perhaps save our ire for our real enemies, not silly individuals like Irons, who I don’t think is actually ill-natured.

      1. Perhaps you ought to know when to shut-up.

        1. de Villiers 7 Apr 2013, 10:36am

          Something you have obviously never learned.

    2. I agree. My green tick has reduced your mark-down. I suspect he had help to compose this but so be it. He’s really of no consequence, either as an actor or as a social commentator.

  2. All of my respect towards him is now gone. He destroyed any positive sides I thought he had.

    It’s sad that such a talented actor can be so close minded and bigoted. And yes sir, you are a homophobe.

    1. John, in my years in the theatre I found that despite the fact that there were a great many gay men, and some lesbians, working in that field, it did not mean that there was profound acceptance of gay and lesbian people. Lip-service, yes. Thinking “them” good for a laugh, yes. Thinking them colourful and fun, yes. Really intellectually and rationally respecting gay and lesbian people, NO.

      Irons is just another fickle and superficial actor, except that he likes to give off an air of the well-read and wise. It’s no more than a skin. Nothing deeper.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Apr 2013, 7:14pm

        Totally concur! He never even made it big in Hollywood either. There are far more talented people than him. Definitely not an intelligent man. Ironic his claim to current fame is The Borgias, a family with a long track-record of incest.

        1. My, how perceptive you are, perceiving a link like that! I don’t know what Irons is up to theatrically these days but if he’s been up to his eyeballs wallowing in the mire of the Borgias, then, absolutely, YES, incest and depravity has been occupying space in his neural network and that may well account for the nonsense that he spewed in that interview.

          In my experience actors think that whatever THEY are involved in, at any point, is THE most important matter in the world and everything else, at that point, relates to the make-believe world in which they are immersed. Hence Irons spouting about Equal Marriage through a prism of the Borgias! If he had been playing Harvey Milk, or somesuch, he may well have said something quite different regarding Equal Marriage.

          Thank you, Robert.

      2. This is why the meeja like their gays to be fluffy and camp, bit of a laugh but not to be taken seriously. Witness people like Irons behaving like a sort of hooray Henry with LGBT people.

        But he is an actor of course, so I think on Monday I must seek the opinion of the first busker I come across as their opinion will be no less valid this mummers opinion.

  3. bobbleobble 6 Apr 2013, 6:13pm

    There is nothing valid about what he said, it was ignorant and malicious. He may not think he’s anti gay but I’m not sure his comments bear that out.

    Oh and not only do incest laws cover same sex relatives but the reason for them is not solely about inbreeding but also about undue influence. It’s the same reason that teachers can’t have sexual relationships with children in their classes even after they’re over 16.

    Irons needs to educate himself before insulting people.

  4. … about as valid as calling yourself a ‘great intellect’ !!!!

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Apr 2013, 6:45pm

    Mischievous? Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, Irons. That was his deliberate intent. Sorry, I don’t believe one word he says. I knew he would try to back-pedal it a bit but this hasn’t worked. We haven’t heard the end of this I don’t think. His point isn’t valid because incest is illegal. Incest doesn’t necessarily imply procreation or intercourse for that matter. Yet another example of his ignorance of the law, bloody fool.

    1. He’s back-peddling, indeed, Robert.

      (I generally post by stating my position first and then reading what others have to say. It’s always a delight to find that the post immediately above mine has already said what I have!)

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Apr 2013, 7:04pm

        Yes, indeed Eddy. I said he would in the original Irons’ post yesterday. His ignorance of the law is appalling. I notice the deafening silence of the C4M/CI lot. They usually endorse this sort of nonsense and make a lot of noise about it, but they haven’t, thus far. I wonder why? Or is too soon?

    2. bobbleobble 6 Apr 2013, 7:56pm

      False – sections 64 and 65 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 make sex between relatives illegal and do not differentiate between homosexual or heterosexual incestuous sexual relationships, they’re all illegal. And since you cannot consent to commit a crime there’s no such thing as consensual incest.

      1. bobbleobble 6 Apr 2013, 8:17pm

        What does that have to do with my comment? Or indeed your original premise that incest requires an opposite sex couple when patently it doesn’t?

      2. bobbleobble 6 Apr 2013, 8:27pm

        Believe what you like but you try using consent as a defence in a court of law and you’ll get nowhere.

      3. You cannot believe how surprised I am that Keith might be right about something, but I don’t think the actual word incest is used in the SOA 2003. Though the dictionary definition might now be gender-neutral, all the references I can find to incest are predicated on the male-female connection.

      4. Surely the whole point is that the marriage laws will be redrafted or amended and these amendments will include a ban on intrafamilial marriages in exactly the way intrafamilial civil partnerships are not possible?

      5. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2013, 11:22am

        Absolute rubbish.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Apr 2013, 8:08pm

      Hypocritically opposed? I oppose any consanguinal sexual act between family members, be it children, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and cousins, be it conventional intercourse, oral, manual, anal and any other method to induce stimulation. It repulses me as it does the majority of civilised society. A father or mother having sex with their children regardless of gender is sexual abuse and a crime under British law and will continue to be a crime long after equal marriage is introduced. There are eleven countries with equal marriage, Uruguay number 12 and France to be number 13 next week and more to follow. Name one case of a father or mother demanding marriage to a son or daughter? You can’t can you and neither could Irons. Where is the demand? Serial heterosexual adulterers haven’t exactly been beating down the doors of MPs to introduce polygamy either.

      1. VERY GOOD POINT, Robert. Sad haters of homosexual people can indeed not point to a single case of mothers marrying daughters or fathers marrying sons having occurred in any of the ELEVEN NATIONS in which Equal Marriage already exists.

        So, we are entitled to laugh out loud at these pathetically desperate little people frantically seeking to invoke fears of the worst calamities erupting should Equal Marriage be permitted in the UK, USA, and so forth.

        The poor little things! Their tiny wee little brains simply are not capable of comprehending reality!

      2. you confuse sexual activity with sexuality as in sexual orientation. gay or straight sex is perfectly natural and normal as long as it doesn’t involve parties that do not nor cannot consent to it, when sexual activity can be seen as repulsive, irrespective of sexual orientation, is when it involves illegal and/or to a lesser degree fetish practices

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Apr 2013, 8:10pm

      And point to where I claimed whatever happens in the bedroom between consenting adults is their own business? Your obsession with father/son sex leads me to believe it’s something you yourself crave. I daresay it ran through Irons’ mind too to have even brought it up. Bloody fools the pair of you.

      1. It certainly is a worry, especially for those of us who remember Keith’s frothing rants on intrafamilial male sex last year (he called it ‘incest’ then, clearly he’s sharpening his wits bit by bit these days). The thought that he has a son would be quite disturbing, mitigated by its unlikeliness.

      2. if i am wrong then you must concede that you are a hypocrite

        Thanks Keith, best laugh of the day. That’s what’s called the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose school of logic, I take it.

      3. ‘…since the bibles standards and religion are the reference point for moral laws…’

        and what great standards they are, I hear sharia laws are of exceptionally high moral standards and of course not forgetting such gems like eye for eye and other stuff contained in book of leviticus

    5. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2013, 11:21am

      Using incest is a bigots way of diverting attention from the main issue with pathetically backward and irrelevant comments.

      As incest hasn’t been made legal within restrictive marriage, there is no reason to change that for marriage equality. It’s just another desperate attempt at hijacking the issue by immature pratts!!

  6. I rename Jeremy Irons as “Jeremy Cunning-Fox”!

    The wily old bugger has only sought to wriggle away from his hateful remarks of earlier this week by a skilful mixture of high-flown locution and appealing for sympathy, portending the view that he has been wrongfully and woefully misinterpreted.

    Bugger off, Irons. You’ve revealed your true colours! I shall NOT be attending any of your future stage performances.

    You refute my validity and worth? Well, I refute yours, ENTIRELY!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Apr 2013, 7:10pm

      He must be absolutely delusional to think there wouldn’t be a backlash? He’s really put his foot in this one and can’t seem to extricate himself effectively. He’s a bigger fool than I thought. I’m surprised nobody is rushing to his defence, there are plenty out there just like him. He’s a second-rate actor in my view. I never much cared for him and now I know why. No amount of money could bribe me to see his work. Certainly not now.

  7. No, Jeremy, your comments were just plain moronic, but, being an actor I wouldn’t expected you to know. And, frankly, I don’t know why anyone would give a rat’s fart what you say because you are obviously totally brain dead,

    1. You’ve told us before that you’re an actor, is that not so?

      1. I think what he’s saying is that Irons, as an actor, would be oblivious to how moronic his comments were.

        1. Yes, but our friend jafuf also claims frequently not only that he is an actor but that all male actors are, by definition, gay or at the very least bisexual (as though a taste for cock results in thespian excellence or, worse, that thespian excellence is predicated on a taste for cock). Which makes his observations on anything somewhat less than reliable, as far as I’m concerned.

  8. Man in hole keeps digging.

  9. A classic “some of my best friends are gay, but…” statement.

    The bigotry shines through like moon on a clear night.

  10. If the point is valid as he claims, we would already be seeing elderly mothers (who can’t breed) marrying their sons for tax reasons. What a joke.

  11. johnny33308 6 Apr 2013, 7:38pm

    No, this person is disgustingly ignorant! Incest is still against the law just about everywhere in the civilized world, so his assertion about father son marriages is simply rubbish. Hateful bigot! He lost all respect by stating this evil lie!

  12. sad ignorant twat. lost all respect for you
    I know you considered yourself as a catch.
    i wouldn’t bum you now if you were the last vertebrate on the planet!

  13. what a total w4nker. burn all your dvd’s with Jeremy irons on them. no more inland empire :(

  14. As does yours, pet.

  15. “Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.”

    Can’t see how incest has any validity to SSM. As far as I know incest isn’t allowed in any Western country. He also suggested in his original interview the possibilty of marrying your dog or was he saying our love wasn’t much better than the love between an owner and his pet.

    He’s not anti-gay! Yeah right! I think I have heard similar arguments from self proclaimed non anti-gay people…

  16. Craig Nelson 6 Apr 2013, 9:32pm

    One really struggles to comment sensibly. Jeremy irons is British. Both the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament (covering England and Wales) are in the process of introducing legislation allowing same sex marriage (as is France, New Zealand and others). Funnily enough in every country that legislates same sex marriage including the one mentioned regulate prohobited degrees of relationship.

    His reaction should be “Phew, thank goodness they thought of that. I was really worried they’d just pass the law in about 10 minutes at 3am when everyone’s really tired and they’d have forgotten this angle. Now my mind has been set at ease (by my agent and a few thousand others). I’m so relieved”.

    Needless to say that was not his reaction.

    I always thought Irons was creepy. I think that Dr Freud would have quite a lot to say about his very unhealthy preoccupations.

  17. I will actually defend him a little in one of his comments on this story. The internet should be a place where ideas and opinions can be openly said. While i don’t agree with what he said (although i do believe he isn’t a homophobe, i don’t think he has an opinion either way) i respect his right to say it. People can dislike this comment as much as they want, but freedom of speech is a valid thing, and he had the right to say it. That’s my two cents (and if you’re going to disagree with this, don’t just call me a self hating homophobe and throw insults my way, respond with a proper argument. If you just insult me, i’m not gonna respond)

    1. Freedom of speech also gives others the right to respond to his hateful and small-minded comments.

      It’s a two-way street.

      if he says something hateful, bigoted and ignorant, then others have just as much right to call him out on it and point at his prejudice.

      And if you’re thinking “freedom of speech” like in the US, well deary, that has absolutely nothing to do with this. Most Americans don’t even understand the “freedom of speech” clauses in their own constitution. It has nothing to do with people being allowed to say what they want without others responding. It ONLY has to do with the GOVERNMENT not enacting laws that curtail this freedom… and as we know, the UK (and Canada) have specific laws that DO curtail some types of speech. So even American-style “freedom of speech” does not apply here, as the laws are different.

      1. I agree completely, it is a two way street, but we should be above instant name calling. I’m sorry, but i believe freedom of speech should have no limits. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are two different things. We don’t exactly have complete freedom of speech in England either. And don’t patronize me by calling me ‘deary’ just because i have a different POV to you.

    2. BlokeToys 7 Apr 2013, 1:18pm

      It’s not about having the freedom to say something. Others also have the freedom to respond. If you don’t want that response, choose where you express your views a little more cautiously.

      This is like that Michelle Shocked thing all over again. People were screaming in her defence saying she has a right to her homophobic opinions and that others should respect that. Indeed, people have the right to their opinions, and I have the right to call them out on it, debate it, argue it and attack it!

      If these “celebrities” and others can attack people in their ignorant views, we also all have the right to attack back, and anyone suggesting that we don’t have that right is a hypocrite.

      No one is suggesting that he doesn’t have the right to an opinion, or to express it. But if he wants the freedom to make such an ignorant statement, he has to deal with the freedom of others to argue against his ignorance.

      He’s just another person who thinks he can preach, and then complain when confronted.

      1. I agree, i’m not saying it doesn’t work both ways, in fact, that’s kind of what i’m arguing. It does work both ways, we can disagree with what he said, which we have the right to do, but people have the right to say it in the first place.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Apr 2013, 2:03pm

      He has a right to say it, but he doesn’t have the right to say it unless there is evidence of anything like that happening to validate it. He should have researched it before opening his mouth and come forward with the facts to support such a spurious, provocative statement.

      The Netherlands introduced equal marriage 12 years ago, a long time to ascertain any parent/child sexually abusive relationships as a result of it. He knew it would foment a whirlwind of condemnation as a means to stoke the fire of opposition. That in and of itself is homophobic. Being heterosexual and conveniently having so called ‘gay friends’ doesn’t mean that one can’t be homophobic. Of course he has an opinion otherwise he wouldn’t have made such a vile, disgustingly offensive allusion to fathers and sons marrying or mothers and daughters? The man is a homophobe and if you think otherwise, then you too are delusional or in denial.

      1. 1. Flaw in your argument, you used poisoning the well, saying that if someone disagree, they’re *insert insult here*. That’s not an argument, but i will say that i am anything but delusional, and i spent way too long in denial to still be in it. I spent 15 years in denial about who i was, i’m no longer there.
        2. He was right about the fact that we should be above just name calling, i mean, it’s pathetic. And he has the right to say what he wants to say, just as others have the right to openly disagree. I genuinely believe he isn’t a homophobe, and i will stick to that belief until I have solid proof, not just one misjudged quote. (and, in addition, i’d like to say that i am not on the same side as Keith, i’m as far away from him as possible for the main reason that i am not a homophobe)

  18. Yes, because ‘interracial marriage will lead to people marrying their mothers and fathers’.

    There’s absolutely no difference between either of those references. I used to like Irons, but he’s gone right down in my estimation now.

  19. Hmm weird, I’ve never heard of a father/mother marrying their opposite sex child for tax purposes either. This man Is a lunatic I tells ya..!!

  20. Irons problem is that he has not taking the time to gain an understanding of the widely accepted (including legal definitions) of incest. It is sexual activity with any close relative whether blood or by marriage (e.g. step parents)

    He seems to have his own definition in his head that does not equate with the common definition. He then uses his flawed analysis to make a comment about marriage equality.

    Through his comments Iron has shown to the world that he suffers muddled thinking.

    I also don’t believe his attempt at spin.

  21. It’s funny how everyone that is against equal marriage rights will turn immediately to bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. If there can be legal consent, then I am ok with it being legal, which obviously excludes pedophilia and bestiality.. I’m sure I’m opening myself up to attack with this view, but If the adults are consenting, I don’t care if they’re related.

    1. familial sex is grossly immoral

      Though permitted and recorded more than once in the OT, of course.

      1. that would make sense when there was no congenital risk, which likely later came about

        I think it’s fairly obvious who the idiot here is, pet.

  22. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2013, 11:16am

    Ridiculous. His comments are not valid due to the fact that incest remains illegal and as yet I haven’t seen anyone campaigning for such so how can it be valid. It’s pathetic.

    It just gives pathetic bigots another poor excuse and no matter how invalid they are they will pursue it. Sadly it is their way. They don’t work on facts but pathetic invalid excuses.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Apr 2013, 1:44pm

      Perhaps it’s ignoramuses like him who crave sex with their children to even raise the issue. Revealing that this is coming from heteros and not from us, speaks volumes where their minds are and what they think or fantasise about.

  23. This is bad news. I’m in Poland . and we are talking about this on http://www.gaychat.pl .where gays can be free http.gaychat.pl the place to be ;-))

  24. You are an offense. Mr Irons, please keep your fantasies to yourself. The LGBT Community does not comprise a bunch of muppets or goats, as you seem to think. There are moral and other issues that you seem to think we do not regard. Please go away… you offend me.

  25. BlokeToys 7 Apr 2013, 1:12pm

    Well, that’s depressing. I held a lot of respect for this talented man, and that is all now evaporated.

    Yes, people have a right to their views, but when those views are so obviously idiotic it’s impossible to come back from that.

    I would love to see a proper debate over gay marriage, but unfortunately none exists. It is fundamentally impossible for anyone to defend the stance of the anti-gay marriage brigade, because every argument they pose can be immediately shot full of holes.

    Irons has shown another ignorant side to the debate, joining the clergy, the extremists, the bigots and conservatives in adding another nonsense perspective in an attempt to prove a point that they simply cannot prove.

    The man might be able to speak with the intellectual affectations expected of a classically trained actor, but his idiotic statement displays a basic ignorance, and shows that he’s just a word-smith, and not an intellectual – far from it.

  26. Maybe traditional marriage should be scrapped then because its open to fathers marrying daughters.

  27. Dave North 7 Apr 2013, 4:34pm

    Oh just shut it. You are an actor. The mortgage is paid by you lying for a living.

    Therefore piss off.

    1. He’s an actor not a politician…

  28. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Apr 2013, 5:45pm

    So, Irons would also have to concede that having sex with a non-menstruating under-age girl is not incest?

  29. You don’t need to know the law – just ask yourself how many father-daughter or mother-son marriages you know about, heard about, watched in movies, read about in books…

    Zero.

    So suggesting that marriage equality could mean father-son marriages is saying that gays are morally deviant perverts.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Apr 2013, 8:06pm

      You make a good point and like you, I’ve not known of any such relationships or demand for them either. There was similar nonsense banded about during the CP debate and not one instance of what Irons is banging on about has ever come to fruition in the UK that I know of. He’s really quite stupid and not that bright.

      1. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2013, 11:26am

        Indeed and if there were you can guarantee that it would be on Jerry Springer or Jeremy Kyle!! lol

    2. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2013, 11:27am

      As per usual you bring nothing but demented flawed arguments.

      What rubbish.

    3. legal lopholes should the law provide them as in the case of same sex marriage should it happen.

      And why should it be any different from civil partnerships in that respect?

      1. “it could be argued” – exactly. Why not wait and see before getting all frothed-up like an overdone cappuccino about it, especially as you don’t even live in the UK? It appears not to be an issue in the 11 countries that already have legalised same-sex marriage (or, since you claim that laws can only prevent, not enable: have removed the restriction against same-sex marriage), so why should it here?

        Of course, I don’t have the expertise in UK marital law you seem to believe you have.

  30. @Keith, its time for your medication.

    Get well soon.

    xxx

  31. Maybe he’s not anti-gay, but I wonder about his ability to think coherently.

  32. Just like mothers marry sons and fathers marry daughters now?

  33. Fauxology (false apology). Sorry if anyone was offended. Was making a joke …. Yeah, we’ve heard it all before. A sensible approach to the issue if he wanted to exaggerate the issues would be to suggest that all legislation be made gender neutral, which would make for marriage equality cos without legal recognition of gender, any marriage could be between two unrelated consenting adults. Close family relatedness as a barrier to marriage is another issue entirely than gender of participants.

    In fact I can’t think of a law that needs to refer to gender anyway, except in nondiscrimination clauses.

  34. The things that come from the mouths of the GLBT community are often far more offensive that Irons’ comment. Some are so bitter that they can’t take a joke unless it comes from their own mouth. Get over yourselves.

  35. Gosh, what an easily-agitated wee bunny you are! So much energy to so little purpose. Does it not occur to you that you’re wasting your time trolling here? It’s hardly as though you’re achieving anything (other than annoying people) with your posts on this site, after all.

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