Jeremy Irons Discusses Gay Marriage [ORIGINAL] | HPL
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Subscribe to HuffPost Live Today: bit.ly/13Rzzjw
Actor Jeremy Irons joins Josh Zepps in studio to discuss gay marriage.
HuffPost Live is a live-streaming network that puts you, the community, front and center. HuffPost Live streams 12 hours of original programming 5 days a week with highlights showing overnight and on weekends. We operate out of state-of-the-art studios in New York and Los Angeles and feature a rotating team of hosts and producers.
Get More HuffPost Live!
Watch: live.huffington...
Follow: / huffpostlive
Like: / huffpostlive
"I didn't make a statement , I was in a discussion, there's a difference. I believe in a discussion you should talk about everything."
Irons discussing this very interview on Strombo later that year in November.
Imagine he was still chasing a career and attempted a discussion nowadays? Oof.
That’s how I try to approach everything in life.
Jeremy, u can talk about sandwiches all day and i’d still be listening fully hyped and engaged. in other words, I love you. hehehehe
the women love Jeremy Irons because he is good actor and wonderful man.I think these women love their husbands
I like how he chooses his words.
If he used more swear words it would give some class.
He's saying marriage may be becoming something other than a union of love and just a political act. People getting married just because or rather insisting on it for the sheer right of it, not out of love for the other person. I totally see his point and do not think he's bringing religion into this at all. It's like people voting just because even if they have no idea who they are voting for or really care, just because they can and feel they ought to.
+Justine Jackson (Bean) IT'S A CONTRACT! Marriage has always been a contract.
Modern day people marry for love because a loveless marriage is not a happy marriage.
Only religious muslims have forced arranged marriage, marriage against the woman's will ... thats barbaric..
88feji not only muslims have arranged marriages, but I won't say anything more on that side, I'll reserve my strong opinions on that so as not to generalize or offend anyone.
My grandparents had celebrated their 72nd anniversary with their 12 remaining children of the original 14 & countless grandchildren, great grandchildren & a few great greats....they had an arranged marriage. My grandmother told me they fell in love with each other in a matter of months. No dowry, no one was "sold" or abused in any way. I believe they were 15yo & 18yo when it was agreed upon & married 3yrs later.
Mind you, we come from a very isolated region & the marriages then were arranged by parents of different tribes to avoid incest & the biological concerns that implies.
They are fighting for the right to unify their love on an equal level as straight couples. Yes it's a political action but most political actions are sparked by a profound reason. Jeremy irons should have explained this in a better way and he later explained that he wished he had.
88feji your generalizing on an extreme level.
one of the funniest and stupidest quotes in the history of humanity: "could a father not marry his son?"
Couldn’t he though?
It's so good.. when I get gay married I want jeremy irons to officiate
That was pretty dumm indeed as if you could not implement rules
And it is not all about breeding
For a tax loophole they do anything the rich to get out of paying taxes
I like how his brain works a tax loophole he may be on to something here
He voice Scar in The Lion King 1994, and STILL sounds just like him!
Ikr 🤣🤣
Yep.
Yeah cuz that's his voice
Well yeah.. he would
@@example6978 Some people sound very different when they age, though. Like, a different person.
As a gay man I totally understand his point of view. He's saying that some people are now wanting the title of marriage for the benefits that it can provide, instead of being for the sole reason of unifying yourself with someone you love.
I know that already happens in some circumstances.
Yea. That's how marriage has been viewed since like... Forever...
How does that apply to gay people? Straight people do it plenty.
@@thatdognotthepuppy5809 but they can easily caught while doing so.
@@AlinaAniretake no? they can’t? there are plenty of loveless marriages that are basically a contract. the government’s recognition of marriages and their tax laws are what corrupted this idea of marriage
I personally like Jeremy so much.He is soo handsome.....
Isn't he?~❤
I get the feeling this man based his trepidation on gay marriage after he watched I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
The amount of dislikes reveals those who didn't understand a word he said.
exactly
***** cop onto yoyrself
Rez I saw this a while ago and to me it seems that he is just bring up some things that opposition sides could use as an argument or as some sort of weapon. He does bring up a point that people haven't thought of and you know it is not impossible for a case like this to happen. Some people need everything spelled out for them and I think that was one of the points he was making. I never thought he was homophobic and seems to me to be a very smart thinking through type of person who can speak eloquently and I don't think many are use to that so it's easier to call him homophobic instead to listening to him.
Well he kinda compared incest to homosexuality
This entire debate shouldn't be a government issue. It should depend on where you marry, IF it is acceptable.
Would Muslim get married in a church? No because they are not Christian.
What does fundamental Christianity teach? That marriage is between a man and a women to submit to each other in the eyes of God.
Now to have homosexuals marry inside a church religiously, means changing the fundamental religion.
Could you do that in Islam? Absolutely no chance.
So why must Christians change their religion and be bullied into submission by people who demand they change to fit their ways?
I personally believe, that if an individual church is ok with it, that is fine.
If a church or any religious place stands by it's fundamental teachings, and does not wish to change what they have always been, then they should have every right to turn that person away.
There are plenty of other places in this world where 2 people can get married, and it doesn't have to be a religious thing either.
So to conclude:
Because there are homosexuals who insist they are christian, and follow Christ probably better than most hypocrites who deny they live in sin anyway, the final say who should decide on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a holy place, should come down to each and every independent place to reach that decision themselves. I know already that most homosexuals are reasonable enough to accept that not every religious institution will accept or carry out a marriage within their religion, and that shouldn't be a problem, because if people respect the rights of each other to be gay, then people should also respect the rights of people to be fundamentally religious.
Be Prepared, for the flame war of a century
“is not incest between men becouse 2 men cant breed"
I can't believe he compared gay marriege to incest and said is not incest if it's between two men, but here go.
That's the same thing as sayng straight pedophilia is not pedophilia couse they can have children becouse girls can get their periods by 10 and boys can produce sperm by 10 as well.
Father and daugther marriege is incest not becouse they can have children with diseases it's becouse it's fucking IMMORAL, we cannot guide a society based solely on procreation, morals are more important, just becouse breeding is possible doesn't make it everything right.
He's saying that it isn't considered incest by law. He's pointing out that since that's the case, then a father could legally marry his son, and he's opposed MORALLY (I would assume) to that.
He agrees with you but you chose to focus only in the comparisson ignoring the context...
Another thing worth mentioning, Incest isn't immoral, it's the issues that it brings in almost all cases (unbalanced power dynamics, possible complications with procreation, etc). But there can be instances of incest where none of that happens. It's generally illegal because such cases are so rare.
Sorry sir, but contrary to what u said, I read that Canada has not legalised pedophilia and bestiality.
Perhaps you can provide the source of your (mis)information ?
The hand gesture at 0:52 is amazing! It's like he's performing some sort of spell.
Lol
I can hear him talking days and nights
I love Jeremy Irons.
I'm sure he has 2 twin brothers. Scar and Jordon Peterson. Both dashingly handsome fellows.
Not allowed to play Scar again because of the Color of His Skin, but its okay folks, Disney is always right, right?
@@LookingTheBest Err, no. I would say Disney is pretty much wrong always, especially (IMO) this time. If they think they can erase the company's history of not inlcuding more African American (or Afican in general) in their casts or their storys by doing this arbitrary choosing they are mistaken. I don't think is a smart move.
Voices like James Earl Jones (which was luckily casted) and Jeremy Irons were super important in the original movie! They should BOTH participate in the new version! Totally disappointed with this decision!
Aurang I am still furious about that.
Me, too. I don't even give a ⛰️ about gay marriages😂
What I found much more striking about this interview than Jeremy Irons' discomfort with the idea of gay marriage was how okay he seemed to be with gay incest. That moment at 1:49 where he says, "Really, why?" as if he totally baffled at the idea of a father not being able to marry his son cracks me up every time.
Before I say anything, I want everyone reading this to know that I'm gay and I don't have a problem with what Jeremy said. In a lot of places, gay marriage is called a civil union. Like he said, it has the same rights but a different name to it. By fighting for the name "Marriage" he believes that it's going to change the definition of marriage due to not being able to have kids. It's not to say that we can't adopt but the original point of marriage was to expand family by bringing two into one. But I do have to point out his flaw in that because the definition of marriage has changed without gay marriage's help.
@Harry Potter yes, but laws are not made to reflect that. Marriage and its connection to property laws have not fundamentally changed. And he has a point about legal loopholes. Not to mention people mostly get married for financial reasons still, it's just that love usually comes first, rather than the other way round
@@glassbarnacle4290 love comes first? huuuummmm, i would say so, but just in a few cases. Usually people marry bcz there's that certain age that they need go to the next step of their lifes, which is having a stable family foundation if they intend to have kids. But, i believe that a lot of people don't love like Romeo and Juliet, 99% of the people in that regard when get together in marriage probably they like each other and then "wel...i'm 35, i guess this is the best i can do, i can't wait for my soulmate bcz i want to have kids bcz it's time to have them biologically" specially for women, that nowadays at 30 become to panic if single.
Since you're gay i would like to hear your opinion: do you think that the Church should allow gay marriage? Or we should just maintain the civil marriages?
I will say this: i can understand if there's homossexual couples that want to marry religiously, but it's kinda tricky...bcz we are talking about religion that have it's own and unique precepts and it's more about that maxim: "your freedom ends, when the other starts". To me i'm totally ok with civil homossexual marriage, but i believe that if some religion says no to this or that, i think we should respect that, like the other say: "we can't have everything". If it's sacred for that institution a marriage only btw a man and a woman, i think everyone should accept it. Same goes by if there's some religion that it's ok with gay marriage. I think that none of those religions should try to impose their personal views and wishes towards something way bigger than only individuals.
People don’t need to have kids just because they’re married..
These people still have no answer for couples that don't want kids. Or can't.
i understand what he’s saying. nowadays people are getting married for the sole reason of just being married. be that straight or gay or anything else. it’s not out of love anymore. it’s about the benefits you get from it. and how you can show off your 10000$ wedding to your friends and brag about it. “oh my husband this” and “my wife that” it’s not about love. i believe anyone can marry. you don’t have to make a big thing out of it. just marry in your own back garden for heaven’s sake. people are completely ruining the meaning of getting married. years ago it was because people wanted to love each other. they had actual feelings for another and they wanted to share that love. weddings were small and only close family and friends were there. now, if Becky and Chad are getting married, even the people of Asia are gonna know about it. it’s crazy.
I think Jeremy's just thinking out a thought experiment, admittedly not the stage for it, but at the end he seems to snap back into the room when he says "I don't think sex matters at all, I don't think what it's called matters at all"
I don't see why it would be that complicated. Two people, not related, who are of age, who both have the psychological capability to enter a contract. It's the same thing as heterosexual marriage, just different body parts.
No where in the marriage contract does it say that it is for the purpose of procreation. There are married het couples who choose not to have kids. I think it's an issue that's being made more complicated than it really is.
Meh. He's just thinking aloud. I don't think he's making any definite final decisions on the subject.
He has some good points.
Then it's absolutely fine to not say anything rather than say crap.
@@glindathegoodwitch3385 Very easy tho, isn't it? You can legalise gay marriage and also introduce a law that says you can't marry your own child (which I'm almost sure is a real law) regardless of their gender. Here you go. Sorted for you. No, his points are not good. They are ignorant, old fashioned and he didn't think this through. He came across very stupid in this interview.
God forbid we should think aloud...
@@TookThisPictureInSpace agreed. What a weird jump for him to make! It’s not like straight men were able to marry their daughters back in the day
Jeremy Irons is saying what if there is a situation like this, and the interviewer didn't quite understand him. The interviewer is thinking his point as a moral question, but not like Jeremy Irons is talking about a situation example. As he said before he doesn't have a strong opinion gay marriage, but what if some people take advantages and do something bad.
Like straight marriage.
You're redefining incest. A father having sex with his daughter is incest even if she doesn't get pregnant. Just google the definition.
I remember a time when it was illegal for me to marry a black woman in many of our southern states. Marriage equality is here now in the United States and the sky hasn't fallen. Peace and be well✌
I know this is an old comment and you probably won’t see this. But holy crap, that’s nuts. I never realised that was a law!
@@js21285 ......you must be new here (on earth)
My grandmother wasnt allowed to vote until the 60s.
She was 30.
I'm now 34.
Time is not that crazy
So true
A relic if there ever was one....for someone who doesn't have "strong feelings" about the matter, Irons expressed a lot of fear based strawman arguments espoused by conservative pundits. Kudos for Zepps for a quick, incisive rebuttal and ending the discussion with respect and humor.
He's just worried more about people playing the tax system lmao relax
@@Rambo2point0 You might be right. Reminds me of my father; a decent enough man who hated change and conflict . Plain spoken, incurious but never malicious.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.... Hard STOP! If you want to have a gay union cool, it's a civil union or what ever you want to call it. You just can't call it a marriage 🤷🏽
"we debase what marriage is. I worry about that." -Jeremy Irons
"If I say that a spoon is something I put up my arse it doesn't stop you from enjoying your pudding" - Charlie Brooker
***** yummy
***** I don't know, I feel it'd add a certain....uh....flavor de J' ne sais quoi!
They say we’re sick for being gay but compare it to marrying your own kid.. ok
I love the people defending his points. Defend the guy, sure , it seems his comment was more ignorant than homophobic.
But he clearly didn't know what he was talking about - and that's fine, he was thinking out loud about something he hadn't thought about before being asked. But if you think about it and still think what he said makes sense you're insane. And I bet even he'd agree with me there.
He clearly knew what he was talking about. He set the trap, and the blind interviewer walked right into it. Incest is a "moral" problem for marriage? Oh Really? Says who? The same folks who said the same of homosexuality? God?(perish the thought!) Man? Well man's "moral compass" changes with the day of the week, and need for cultural acceptance of his favorite sin du jour Lol. Irons revealed the moral relativism behind all of it. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, by definition, in the way a triangle is a 3 sided polygon. Thats not hate or homophobia, its just a fact. We now accept 4 (soon to be 5) sided "triangles" in our lexicon, but we all know better.
Exactly I came here to see this because it sounded insane. When you see him thinking aloud why all the hoo hah.
As for the greeks, athenian male citizens typically had younger male "companions" with whom they shared a sexual and emotional relationship. Typically the older man would groom the younger one, help him make friends in society, etc. and when the younger man started becoming successful, typically he'd settle down, marry a young girl to make babies and organise the household and take on "companions" of his own.
Jeremy Irons vocie is very authoritativ, which is why it sounds good at a first glance.
all these comments trying to explain why what he said wasnt homophobic but idk man.. instantly thinking of incest when talking about same sex marriage seems a little homophobic to me lol
he was referecncing an old law that brits used to exploit
Why are people defending him just because you find his movies good
fr
He's not saying anything against gay marriage. He's just worried people will take advantage of the legal loopholes because the original purpose of a marriage was to breed and expand
@bullekudde6433 Because he’s entitled to his guydamn opinion
Jeremy says he doesn't feel strongly about gay marriage. He has the right to act and speak his mind. I support him for his wisdom and courage to staying honest and authentic without fear of criticism.
Yes, it’s wonderful when toxic, ignorant people get to speak their minds without fear.
No.
So when's the wedding, Jeremy ?
I'm very pro-gay, have no issues with it whatsoever. But I think it's worth noting here Jeremy said he doesn't really have a strong opinion here. I think he's genuinely sitting on the fence and playing devil's advocate. Also worth mentioning he grew up where being gay was much more a taboo than it is even nowadays, so to be so dismissive of Jeremy is wrong. I have an uncle who is gay who I've wept for after hearing his troubles so I don't really like homophobia at all. But I didn't get a feeling of homophobia here at all, I got someone talking about why some may take it as a big issue, and the other issues surrounding gay marriage.
@Ben K You look at it again in the perspective of sexual violence, which wasn't at all what he said. If you heard him, you would say that he didn't even believe that love and marriage were really connected. He was talking about it from the perspective of property laws and legal loopholes, something completely different. The point is that laws and ethics aren't the same. Irons wasn't arguing from an ethical standpoint - he never claimed to, because he had no reason to do so - he was claiming potential legal ramifications.
Everyone before now grew up in a world where being gay was a taboo. It's not about what you used to, but how tolerant and intelligent you are. If it doesn't concern him, then maybe he doesn't need to have an opinion about it. He can, but it's okay not to. I didn't get a feeling of homophobia either, tbf, I got a feeling of ignorance.
@@TookThisPictureInSpace and being ignorant to something is totally fine if you don't let it bother you. They say ignorance is bliss. When you don't even need to know about something, or let something bother you even remotely.. But he was asked a question and he answered it honestly. If he answered bluntly saying he didn't care, people would likely find loopholes or put word in his mouth
What Jeremy is saying is Zen, basically. How can one oppose to a father marrying his son but agree to a man marrying another man. If we're to define gay marriage as the legal right to be with someone of the same sex whom they love, at its most fundamental level, then a father-son marriage is equally legitimate too, at its most fundamental level. Jeremy Irons gets it, while most like the interviewer, don't.
Ken that was one of the best replies I read here yet.
Kenneth Hew, what about a father marrying his adopted daughter ?
They're heterosexual and genetically they do not inbreed .. so by Jeremy Iron's so-called "logic", if heterosexual marriage is allowed, should we now allow father/adopted daughter marriage ?
So if heterosexual marriage is the norm, then a father and his daughter can marry? Because traditional marriage is true love between a man and woman? Just going by your logic mate.
Ryan Devine
Hey pal, I'm on your side but I think u should avoid quoting father/daughter marriage as a counter example .. because inbreeding is a problem with such marriage.
I feel a better counter to the anti-gay slippery slope argument would be to quote father/adopted daughter marriage .. there's no inbreeding and its heterosexual ..
88feji Technically, a father and his adopted daughter can naturally have sex and it will not be considered incest because inbreeding would not occur. By a father and his adopted daughter marrying as you suggested, sexually, there's not going to be a problem, but morally, its debatable because morals are always debatable because there is no such thing as eternal, universal morals. What was immoral before, 100, 200, 2000 years ago may very well be acceptable today or in the future, as in the case of same-sex marriage today. Hence, you can see the concern if by allowing same-sex marriage but at the same time not allowing father-son marriage or father-adopted daughter would seem hypocritical and biased indeed.
Show less
Reply ·
Things change, just be aware of what is changing. Be realistic and honest. No one is "anxious and afraid," except for those who are terrified of thinking through the necessary consequences of their position. If someone asks you to think, it doesn't necessarily mean they're being mean to you...
So many people already don’t take marriage seriously. Look at all the divorces already.
And this dude really brought up a son marrying a father to debate the idea of gay marriage 🤦🏻♂️
Ironically I have seen the opposite happening - a man adopted his former partner as a son to get sure his remaining family could not cut him out of the will.
Wrong, many religions don't. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is law that was introduced by the British. Also, it isn't even specific, it's not well written, and raises state questions about what's "natural". Besides, law isn't a religion.
While you have a point about Christianity, many people who aren't Christian, but who say and think they are, do condemn the sinner. I also never said anything against Christianity, just a hypothetical perception of Abrahamic belief introduced into law.
not him saying incest doesn't happen between men lmao incest is sexual relations between close/blood related family members so gender doesn't matter
Very funny to see all the little twinky bedwetters having hysterical hissy fits over Irons thoughtful musings.Top man Jeremy.
He's not being offensive or bigoted, he just sounds confused more than anything
P.S. Not to say he's losing, he's not. I've come away from this convinced more on the issue that polygamists will try to ride the rainbow to legality, so to speak.
But other people tend to focus only on winning that they forget the point of discussion is to find other peoples views, and that the point of debate is convincing other people of the truth/another point of view. It's never about winning, and those that think otherwise have an agenda. (More so than most people anyway.)
I watched this again because he's in the Batman v. Superman movie. It's the most wonderful interview since Sarah Palin could see Alaska from her house.
WTF is he talking about? Debase "marriage"? Marry your son?
funny how ppl r allowed to defend their opinions for gay marriage freely, but when we have a person express their opinion against or simply question it ppl go ape sh!t, so wat only one group on either end of the spectrum can have a say in on the matter at a time?
Well I disagree with him on that one, a marriage is and has ever been simple contract in the first place wich you can base on sertin rules and conditions that also have changed over the years and are different from culture to culture. If you implement the rule that people are not alowed to have this contract with a nearby familymember than it counts independently of the individual Sex of those who like to make this contract.
For example in midieval germany they had one type of marriage called "Mundehe"wich allowed only the husband to make decisions about the money sexuality and the children if he protected his wife. Now we have different rules and it is much more equal but there are still rules rights and obligation that just have to be adjusted a little bit.
It also would theoretically be possible if 3 or more people would marry why not.
At the end it is a contract. Im fine with that as long as the contract is a fair one and does not suppress anyone.
I want to use Mr Jeremy's initial point to discuss an idea: If we have come to a time in which we approve of gay marriage and it is acceptable because of "love", then what stops us in the future from accepting incest in the name of "love" too?
What if a brother and sister come out (a la Lannisters) and make a case that hey love each other and want to get married and no one has the right to prevent that? What stops that between a mother and son or a father and daughter? You would say that it messed up and completely abnormal, but then again so was gay marriage at one point.
It's not morally correct but as long as it doesn't directly affect me, ion care.
Inbreed is known to cause birth defects. Therefore, a sufficient legal and moral reason exists to not accept it. Can you think any similar argument against gay marriage? - apart that you don't like gay people of course.
Define abnormal. Then corruption. If you are more alerted by two persons kissing each other rather than two persons beating each other then I would suggest some serious reconsideration of your definitions of ethical and unethical.
Although I am very disgusted by incest and the emotional side of me rejects it, honestly I cannot find any strong and rational reason to declare it illegal.
There are countless factors that increase risks in procreation. If the grounds for not allowing incestuous relationships is to prevent inbreeding related diseases, then it would be fair to also ban other relationships among peole with increased risk of disease. By the same logic, women above 45, people with diabetes, people who have any sort of hereditary disease, should not be allowed to marry, because like incest, their children have a high risk of acquiring diseases. Now obviously that is not the case. That is why I highly believe that the true reason of incest being illegal is simply cultural moral values. The genetic risk aspect of it is simply added to justify the law.
So what remains at the core of incest being illegal is simply cultural moral values. Now we all know moral values can change. I would even say it should change as we develop a better understanding and appreciation for human rights. If moral values didn't change, people would still own slaves and sell their daughters like cattle.
Perhaps a more relevant point to bring up is the power imbalance issue within an incestuous relationship, instead of genetics. Imagine your boss asked you on a date. You can't say you really have a choice to refuse because you risk getting fired. Same goes with parent/child relationships. You don't really have a choice if you risk getting kicked out, your education not being paid, and not having anything to eat. However, this aspect of incest is only present in parent/child situations and not siblings or cousins.
I'm not going to go as far as saying incest should be legal. I'm not a sociologist. I'm sure there are more things to consider. It's a very interesting thought experiment, you see. If any of you reads what I write here, try to think about the points I made.
MORRISMORRISMORRISMORRIS Spoken like a true neanderthal. At least try not to be so self-contradictory.
The far-left will always claim "Oh, that won't happen," but it usually does. Jeremy made interesting points.
Yeah because it will, never happen. With the current consent laws on the books, nothing of the shit you want to connect to gay marriage, WILL NEVER FUCKING HAPPEN.
What is far-left for you exactly? Because i don't think same-sex marriage isn't just a far left idea.
Yeah, remember when people started marrying their dogs? That was pretty much the end for western civilization.
1:19 "It's not incest between men." Okay, I'll stop you right there. Incest means sex between family members. Gay sex exists. Sex is not exclusive to procreation if we're going to get scientifically objective here.
Well, he wasn't too wrong. It is an actual debate how much the state is allowed to forbid when there is no rational reason to take a right. Clearly there is a reason to prevent offspring of close relatives. But why would that mean they should not be married?
Just because someone does not support gay marriage, it doesn't make them a bad person. The youth are so naïve.
+Janne Seppänen he said he didn't really have a huge opinion because he didn't know a lot about the subject - he's just advocating and putting an argument against the normal idea to try to make either side think a little bit more; is that not how new ideas come about? did we not have to challenge each other to think in order to come up with most of our laws and social ideas today? it might seem dumb as fuck but he knew that it wasn't a really strong argument and, honestly, anyone else should have realized what he was doing if they weren't dumb as fuck themselves
i think the fact that you have to throw around irrelevant phrases like "gay marriage magically leads to incest" proves that you're not trying to understand what he's doing - this is a pretty basic case of just throwing the ball around to try and challenge the speaker to think, but since he doesn't know the topic as well as you people expect of him (for some reason), then he of course isn't throwing around very strong subject material
he's even said on many other interviews that he didn't have much of an opinion on the matter and that he was just tossing around an idea to see where we go with this - i don't see why you people think this is such an otherworldly concept or how you could be so appalled that someone wouldn't want to blindly agree with the concept and be done with it, rather to toss out an objection, even if he doesn't agree with it, and see where it goes
is this not how new ideas are born? are you so opposed to the thought of new concepts coming about? it doesn't matter what the nature of the statements he tosses around is, his personal point of view on the matter is "i don't much care how you feel, i just wish you the best of luck with whoever you love because marriage is great and i want you to be happy" - but for some reason you're willing to overlook that and call a random advocation dumb? like what's the matter with you?
+Tim Smith You are the smartest person here
No, it doesn't. But in the eyes of people who support equal rights, it's a completely immoral belief.
+Tim Smith it just reveals their limited perspective on life
Whatever your opinion on gay marriage and whether or not incest laws still apply for a father and his son, irons has a point even though he apologized for his comment. About 200 years ago no one would've ever thought gay marriage would've caught on. So who knows? Maybe incestual marriage will catch on too in a few years.
We all have opinions and he was just stating his. I isn't imposing his views on other people, like lawmakers. I believe he wouldn't care either way what two consenting adults decide.
You can see exactly what Jeremy is getting at here without him yelling it from the roof tops. He is also being very careful with his word choice as one slip up and he can come across as homophobic. Just because you do not necessarily agree with gay marriage doesn't make you homophobic. I am completely atheist so no religious strings are linked into this but I was brought up to believe a marriage is the legal binding between a man and woman.. Jeremy is saying here that if we start the belief that everyone has a right to marry anyone as long as they love them brings up a lot of spanners in the works and further drastic changes will be made which will inevitably damage the social structure.. hence his point made on incest and jokingly saying he could marry his dog...
I understand what he's saying, but incest and homosexuality are two completely different things. To compare the two is insulting to gay people, since incest is universally forbidden.
Incest breeding causes birth defects and genetic defects - we're scientifically not meant to breed with family members. Even science says it's wrong. It's just not in our human biology. If you want to talk about incest love (no children), then it's nothing but forbidden gross love. Call me a incestphobe, don't care.
I highly doubt we will ever live in a world where there's some "incest rights" going on. No fucking way. That shit's completely different from being gay. To support such a thing would only make you a fucking weirdo to the world.
I like Jeremy Irons and have nothing but respect for his artistry, but what he said was kinda ridiculous if he thinks/worries that could potentially ever happen.
He is not being offensive to gay people.... he is basically saying that stating Everyone has the right to marry anyone they want..... leads to problems. More people who are not right in the head MAY start seeing it as legal to marry LITERALLY ANYONE or anything.... but there is that crazy lady who married the Eiffel tower..... sex must be painful in that relationship =P
Well said 👏
everyone was upset about the gay marriage thing but he didnt said too much about it and said some interesting things about incest that ive never tought about
I see a point in what Jeremy said. I mean, he just didn't expressed his opinion in the right way and it came out kinda making him seem like a bad guy to some people. I support gay marriage 100%, I think they should have the right to marry and be happy like everyone else but what Jeremy said about incest was like "Rules against incest is there to protect them from breeding 'cause there's a BIG chance of the child of an incest relationship to be born with a disease, mental/physical or deformed, and most people who are capable of finding incest okay, could be capable of murdering or abandoning their own child BUT when it comes to a gay marriage, there is no chance of having a child in the natural way, only through adoption or artificial insemination, so there is no problem with that. What he means is that times have changed and he's trying to keep up with it, and form new opinions based on today's rules and what he thinks it's right or not.
Considering that Jeremy Irons is an outspoken left-winger on most other issues, I'm surprised to hear him say that he didn't support legally redefining marriage. That was also my position and I got left-wingers telling me that giving homosexuals the same rights as marriage without the word marriage was tantamount to "separate but equal."
I'm sorry, he sounds bonkers. "A man could marry his son..." Then he says the defense of marriage act is "debasing" marriage. I know this is 10 years old, but he sounds either drunk or insane. I notice he hesitated when the interviewer said Irons is a happily married man .... he hesitates and says, yes, I have a dog. And he thinks HE is the definition of what a marriage should be?
It’s Not Incest Between Men should’ve been the tagline for Dead Ringers.
oh my god he compared it to incest oh god oh god Jeremy no please
With respect, my main point is why can't some be honest & tell their views about homosexuality without being labeled a bigot or a homophobe?
"I don't really have an opinion on this but i will compare same-sex to incest."
Ya idk whats up with all these brain dead comments. I hate when people act like they are unable to comprehend gray area and common sense. Like people who clearly know wtf is going on saying shit like oH if YoU aRe BoRn AtTrAcTeD tO tHe SaMe SeX tHaT mEaNs PeDoS aRe Ok
Wow he talks just like in the movies
Mr Sunday Movies sent me here.
me too. haha
+TheFlannel1 Me too, and I think his clip was misleading. Jeremy is talking about tax implications, not deviant behavior.
+PaulTurbo It was a little, but still funny
TheFlannel1
yeah, it was funny.
Same here! Ha!
I saw an edited clip of The Lion King where Scar just says, "It's not incest between men."
Jeremy Irons is the best
"We choose a fair heterosexual marriage so that we may survive"
Jeremy Irons is a great man!
Can someone please tell me why do you call it "gay marriage"? The word marriage derives from Latin matrimonium which combines the two concepts; mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition. (Online Etymolgy Dictionary)
what is the obsession with procreation?
Many feel like they need to procreate to have a meaning in life which is selfish and sad. Look at all the idiots posting non stop family photos on social medias making them look like they are perfectly happy when the husband or wife cheats and regrets having kids. The world is broken. It is selfish to have kids.
Oh, you know, just that biological reason we exist as a species.
He just offered an apology to the media saying that he is not anti-gay and that gay couples should be able to get married and can raise kids better than heterosexuals. Keep u.
FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-
Huge fan of you, can't believe I found you on this video! lollllll
Well, Jeremy Irons, I'm not sure if you are for the concept of gay marriage or not, but you seem to take it from a logical and legal perspective.
I don't see any problems on Jeremy's opinion, everyone should have their right even though they oppose gay marriage
Close your eyes and imagine a lion with black mane and a scar on his left eye is discussing gay marriage.
After watching this video what he said seems to have been taken out of context.
Why is the great Jeremy Irons lowering himself talking to Huff Post
I mean, I like Jeremy Irons as an actor, but I come on man, u played an evil possibly- gay lion for God sake!
He said he doesn't give a fuck what more do u want from the man.
Don't jump to the conclusion that he's homophobic, he's just got a weird view of incest more than anything. He's not saying anything detrimental towards homosexuals.
The interviewer's so bloody uptight, I bet he squeaks when he walks. He's not even prepared to consider anything Jeremy Irons is saying - that's typically anal Aussie media for you.
Be prepaaaaaaaared!
An actor without a script. A pretty depressing sight. I dated an actor for 5 years. I feel bad saying this, but like Jeremy is here... my partner would get very animated and theatrical about a point, which would inevitably somehow come apart while they were talking, they would talk themselves out of it, and by the end, do a complete oblivious and annoying back-peddle like Irons does "They're now fighting for the word Marriage." "It worries me..." and then 3 minutes of waffle later "I don't think it matters what it's called." Actors are a little brighter than models, and some are true artists... but nowhere does it say they need to be great thinkers and this guy proves that. Intellectual HACK.
Anyone else career ended.
Jeremy Irons UNTOUCHABLE.
Love him!❤️
Incest laws will NOT crumble, I don't see any incest advocates out there fighting for the right for family members to marry? Society agrees that incest laws exist for the right reason and will continue to exist.
1:14 woooooow
You miss the point, LGBT aren't asking for special treatment, merely equal treatment under the law.
Honestly, Irons is being logically consistent in saying that, if your starting point is:
"as long as it's between consensual adults and they're not harming anyone else, it should be legal"
Then you have to at least acknowledge that (CONSENSUAL) incest and polygamy/polyandry should also be on the table.
I keep coming back to this. Jeremy Irons.. What a ticket!
Irons said what no one wanted to admit.
If that's the case then why aren't men marrying their daughters or mothers marrying their sons in heterosexual marriages???
He acted as if he had never given the subject any thought.
Now, he wasn't talking about sex with his son. What he was saying that if gay marriage were legalized, he may then be able to marry his son to ensure that the son got the estate when he died, since incest laws (in his mind) are only in place to prevent inbreeding.
But it does bring up the question of where the civil rights end. Will polygamy one day be legal? Will bestiality one day be legal? I mean, the way we look at bestiality today is the way that gays folks were looked at not too long ago.
After “Damage” and “lolita”, one can only say: “Bravo my dear”
Watch out Max!
LOL
Look it up. Jeremy Irons is not opposed to gay marriage.
And you are anti-gay if you are against gay marriage.
His rationalizing his view with that absurd analogy of incest being possible under same-sex marriage is beyond the pale of willful ignorance.He would do well to look up the definition of incest before trying to use it.
thank you
In his defense... He didn't have strong opinion on it.
i see what he's saying. I'm 18 and can get married. I could really care less about the title of 'marriage' and could get married to a close friend just for the tax break. marriage for many people is ceremonial, but in a more objective standpoint, taking away the aspect of sentimentality, it's a funny kink in the system. But no matter what, gay people should be allowed that opportunity, and speaking from 2017, that can.
A genuinely interesting bloke. We need more like him and less air heads that make billions....
he doesn't oppose gay marriage because of it's morals, people, he said anyone should be able to love anyone they want, but he's saying that gay marriage would open up a bunch of other marriage cases that they can play with, and his example is incest. he's not homophobic, y'all gotta chill
Alexa™ so we aren’t supporting get married because JI is afraid it will lead to incestual marriages? Give me a break.