1. Kip says

    So sorry to hear about Iron’s dementia. I hope someday we find a cure for Alzheimer’s.

  2. LiamB says

    And he’s still an idiot. Straight men can’t marry their daughters, nor mother’s their sons. Brothers can’t marry their sisters, or vice versa. Allowing gays to get married doesn’t somehow negate laws against incest.

  3. nn says

    A father son relationship is criminal. It is incest and has nothing to do about to prevent inbreeding! After his mind to think about it- is that he seems to think that a father ,son relationship is fine ( but not a father,daughter – both is just sick, incest and criminal), since there is NO risk that there will be children of the relationship.

    Hi is crazy, crazy!!!

  4. SC David says

    “I had hoped…the internet was a forum where ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name-calling.”

    Be nice. The man is afflicted with nincompoopery.

  5. says

    He’s acting as if there is a requirement for procreation in order for incest to be illegal.

    But also he isn’t arguing about incest – he’s arguing about an icky plan to cheat around estate taxes.

    Still a pretty wackadoo argument, but not that much wackier or offensive than those worried about a slew of “Chuck and Larry” marriages to cheat corporations by stealing benefits.

  6. Derrick says

    How in the world is that valid? Where are these nutjobs getting these arguments from?! There are like 11 countries that have marriage equality and I don’t know of any of those 11 that later ended up allowing incest marriages. It’s like people forget that the United States isn’t the only country in the world. If you are curious about what happens after marriage equality is made legal just look at our neighbors.

  7. Dearcomrade says

    I am sure that if a father marrying his son was a practical possibility it would have been tried at some point in history by the British monarchy.

  8. says

    Isn’t he a method actor? Maybe he came to the interview in character. After all, he plays a pope on the Borgias. So it would be natural for him to appear in public as a self-righteous ass. Or maybe it’s much simpler than that and he IS a self-righteous ass.

  9. lock says

    Considering Mr Iron’s first diatribe and the second measured response I would pose that the latter was inspired by his publicist/lawyer/agent to revive his sagging career

  10. Fahd says

    And to think he was featured in Brideshead Revisited.

    The stilted language of his posted letter betrays a lack of education.

    Combine lack of education with lack of innate intelligence and you get pronouncements like this.

    In other words, he’s just stupid, even though he seems all sophisticated and British when he acts.

    Btw, I think he was miscast in the Borgias.

  11. Keppler says

    I think, in fact, what Irons is, is late to the party. We’ve had these discussions before, and have been attacked by NOM and their ilk on precisely these grounds: marriage between two men or two women will lead to incest. We know it’s ridiculous, but Irons doesn’t because he’s been living with his head in the sand. If incest is what you’re concerned about, then incest is what you should outlaw, rather than outlawing all the good things that might possibly somehow someday lead to it. At this stage of the game, people who don’t see that are either clueless, as I suspect is the case with Irons, or bigots trying to costume their intolerance in the garb of civic concern. I give Irons the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he’s somehow been sheltered from the maelstrom of debate that’s been going on all around him.

  12. Pete N SFO says

    Wow… my genuine reaction to his flippant fun at the extension of my discrimination has resulted in name calling?

    Why that’s as disproportionate as some privileged idiot not understanding his idiocy in the first place.

  13. jaragon says

    Actors really should not open their mouths unless they have memorized their scripts.

  14. Devonasa says

    Have you all read his other interview about incest and pedophilia:

    “It is very difficult because children under 16 are immensely attractive,”

    “I remember when my son was 12 and he was like a god. He just went through that sort of golden time for about 18 months. I don’t have a daughter but they do the same”

    “Parental love is sexual. Children practice on their parents. Girls will flirt outrageously with their fathers because they are practicing. But we should know that that is practice. Boys will flirt outrageously with their mothers in a different way.”

    The man is literally obsessed with the idea of incest, and more specifically with his son.

    Something is not right. I hope nothing every happened to Max Irons, his father seems like a creep.

  15. Dastius Krazitauc says

    It was the “debased” comment that pissed me off more. How can you use that word in relation to gay relationships if you are so pro-gay? And how do you expect that “idea” to be freely discussed without blow-back?

  16. Bryan says

    Well, Jeremy, I’m concerned about you sounding like a self righteous blowhard with his head stuck up his ass. Just shut up while you can.

  17. LEE says

    What is wrong with this man? Is he this detached from reality and humanity to be making these comments about gay rights?

  18. Jessica says

    I find this new clarification even more insulting than the original comments. This guy needs to go away and take his narrow and perverse mind with him.

  19. Caliban says

    His response is just more evidence that he’s either woefully uninformed or just an idiot. It takes five minutes on the internet to discover that incestual marriage in all its forms, regardless of reproductive capabilities, is illegal.

    Ergo, his “logic” is stupid, at which point the only reasonable is “OK, I admit it, that was a really stupid thing to say.”

    At the same time, I have to ask why every actor, singer, musician, athlete, etc. is even ASKED for their opinions about gay marriage. It’s one thing if they, of their own volition, want to make a public statement but just asking them is just an invitation for off-the-cuff dipshittery. Granted his opinions are kind of ironic given that he’s played both gay (or at least very homoerotic) roles AND twins in a very twisted incestuous relationship (in Dead Ringers).

  20. Bryan says

    Actually, if Jon Hamm wanted to call himself my step father, okay, I can see marrying him…other than that, absolutely not. I hope that reassures Jeremy.

  21. IsisIsioh says

    I’m sorry but for as much as our community loves to attack the NOM types (which we should) for their ignorance, this Jeremy Irons mess is about as offensive if not MORE offensive than anything NOM leaders have said, and I hope we hold him accountable.

  22. TX Dude says

    He’s entitled to his opinion, but he’s not entitled to not face criticism, challenge and response to his ignorant opinion.

  23. In the Know says

    This man has a gay man who helped uplift his career. This is a slap in the face to that man, and Iron knows it.

  24. UFFDA says

    His comments weren’t important before, even less so now. The washed up should shut up.

  25. Nick Name says

    Some needs to introduce him to Michelle Shocked. They would get along really well.

  26. says

    Apparently “mischievous” is the new euphemism for “idiotic.” Enough wind out of your bag, Jeremy!

    Still, I’m glad Irons came out as a pretentiously creepy moron because otherwise we never would have been treated to the brilliant brilliant Colbert parody.

  27. Duration & Convexity says

    Ok…I’m going to say this and want as many responses as I can get:

    Why do heterosexuals feel that they can discuss our rights, our existence, our way of being, how we become who we are, why we are who we are, and if we deserve to have rights being who we are………yet the moment we respond with some passion, they pretend we’re talking about a subject distant from humans (like as if we’re sharing opinions on modern art vs. classic art)……

    the opinion you feel so entitled to share about who I am, and you defining how I became gay, and how may rights I deserve as a gay person aren’t some flippant opinions about inanimate object….it’s about a fellow human (me)…my existence…my dignity…my rights.

    How do you get straight people to realize this? They TRULY can’t (from my experience with many)

    Straight people sincerely believe telling gay people that they chose to be gay, being gay can be destructive, and gay people should have a limited amount of rights; is just a simple sharing of opinions. And expect (scratch that: demand!) we as gays just listen to their tirade about us, then go for some jumbo juice right after.

    Are most heteros this privileged where they can’t even recognize their own entitlement? I used to always argue no, but lately, observing this in many heterosexuals I interact with; and I truly believe many of them are completely oblivious who how often pompous, ignorant, clueless, entitled, and privilege they sound when discussing who WE are.

  28. DannyEastVillage says

    Mr Irons, the best thing I can say about your attempt at damage control is “Lame.”

  29. LEE says

    @ Duration & Covexity

    I too have noticed the hetero talking point of “whats the matter? I don’t think you deserve to be treated as my equal, but it’s just an opinion right? let’s go out for drinks and please don’t challenge me on my right to vote against your rights. I want to be a bigot and not be called one”

    I refuse to befriend people like this, much less spend a moment with them. I actually feel befriending said people encourages their bigotry and you become that “but I have gay friends” person they’ll use as an scapegoat to feel better about arguing against our rights.

  30. Jim Stone says

    Sorry Jeremy- My partner and I have been together for 22 years. I have NO DESIRE to marry a dog,my father or enter into a polygamous marriage.
    I am so sick of hearing these arguments. They make absolutely no sense. In countries that have accepted marriage equality years ago none of this has occurred. Next time think before you open your trap!

  31. Craig says

    It’s sad that he never figured out what made his original comment so insanely stupid to begin that he actually went back to the same stupid reasoning in his apology. Wasn’t he in one of the Lolita’s?

  32. Francis #1 says

    But nonetheless valid, eh? But it was valid to compare same-sex relationships to incestuous ones.

    But no, you’re not anti-gay, Jeremy. Not at all. Good for you. Fool.

  33. ratbastard says

    I’m sure Mr. Irons is in fact ‘progressive’. He’s now experiencing what happens when you stray off the ‘progressive’ plantation, away from the approved script.


    “I had hoped…the internet was a forum where ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name-calling.”

    Be nice. The man is afflicted with nincompoopery.


    Actually, it would be nice if ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name calling by shills, true believers, and trolls. Not going to happen, Mr. Irons. You should have known better than to think you really could express diversity in thought, or just play Devil’s Advocate.

  34. Kathi says

    Think about this before going off the deep end. How many hetero fathers or uncles or brothers molest their daughters or sons or sisters or brothers or nieces or nephews? On a bad day, I suppose one could suggest that if the child is adopted, and there is no chance of inbreeding, sex with that chosen offspring might not be quite reprehensible. There is the chance of child abuse in any household. Jerry Lee Lewis married a young cousin.

    All to suggest that Mr. Irons might have been speaking ironically, perhaps snarking, but, at last, simply lifting up the possibility that such abuse might happen in any family configuration.

  35. Alejandro says

    Iron’s if RATBASTARD is on your side….you’re argument is deranged, effed, irrational, narrow minded, ignorant, bigoted, and anti gay. Seriously, if ratbastard supports a story or individual, 12 out of 10 times, I can count on said individual having said something offensive toward gay people.

  36. Joel says

    For as much talk as there is about progress, anyone else feel there’s more outlandish anti gay (and very vocal at that) talk today than years ago? I’ve been out for the past 15 years, and while I’m sure homophobia in anytime before the mid 90s was a nightmare, I swear people weren’t this consistently ati gay. I mean maybe they were, but I assure you, it feels like far more people are expressing anti gay sentiments today than 2003.

  37. rocco11 says

    There are plenty of non-breeding heterosexual siblings who are not able to marry one another. Has it been a problem that Fathers with daughters passed menopause have been marrying one another for tax purposes? MY GOD JEREMY. Think my man… THINK!!! You’re being incredulous.

  38. says

    Because, Duration & Convexity, of what Christopher Isherwood identified back in the day as The Heterosexual Dictatorship.

    We have been forced to live under this for quite some time. I’m 66 years-old and well remember how well-nigh impossible it was t even TALK about Teh Ghey seriously. When I joined The Gay Activists Alliance our gibbest goas were getting rid of laws that made us criminals for even congregating in public, fighting for basic civil rights (ie. jobs and housing prohibitions) and (most important of all) getting others to come out.

    It was like pulling teeth back then. Being out was very avant-garde. The Sonewall ids were social outcast with nothing to lose. Middle-Class gays and lesbians hid in their closets and were as fearful of us as they were of the cops. Upper-class gays and lesbians simply went to euope like James Merrill (read his memoir “A Diferent Person”) Amidst all ofthis there were a few truly brave souls. Poet Frank O’Hara out, proud and carefree. He’d managed to carve out a career for himself in the art world, never dreaming of the “Mainstream.” Artis David Hockney was also as out as the day is long — well before Stonewall. They were my heories and “role models.”

    In recent years thi gs have changed rapidly. Kids today increasingly come out when they come of age — without ever knowing the coset. Back in the day the ealy gay orgs kept careful track of everything in the press that might possibly related to LGBTlife. Now it’s everywhere. A day doens’t go by without a tsunami of stores. And we’ve got out journalists like Rachel Maddow, Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper,Thomas Roberts et. al.

    We hav, in short, “arrived,” and as a result there’s been desperate pushack from creeps like Ben Cooper and the revelation that a presumed sophisticate like Jeremy Irons is an Off-the-Wall-Nutter.

  39. Duration & Convexity says

    GREAT read David Ehrenstein!

    Our community is so great having someone like yourself in it.

  40. Bernie says

    if Mr. Irons it trying to have a dialouge he should make sure it is logical, rational and common sense; not something so far fetched, it is almost comical… matches the inane right wingers who come up with comparison to folks marrying animals, buildings, etc

  41. ratbastard says

    I’d have married my dad if blacks hadn’t killed him with their giant genitalia.

  42. Richard says

    He’s telling us he’s not a bigot, just a moron — when, actually, he’s a bigoted moron.

  43. Rehab says

    Isn’t the immediate and devastating harm caused by denying equal rights and privileges to millions of LGBT Americans more important than the incredibly unlikely union of fathers and sons for tax fraud?

    Um, that would be a Yes.

  44. duane says

    He didn’t even address the “debase” comment, which was the truly insulting part of that interview. Instead he tries to turn it around and make those of us who were insulted the bad guys.

  45. Craig Nelson says

    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.

  46. AngelaChanning says

    What a pompous ass. Let’s just take his ludicrous argument at face value. If a parent wants to bypass estate and inheritance taxes to a child, they form trusts, LLCs, and other legal loop holes to pass assets or the use of assets along without a large tax burden. We don’t hear him being concerned about *that*.

  47. Randy says

    “I had hoped that even on such a subject as this, where passions run high, the internet was a forum where ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name-calling.”

    Said. Nobody. Ever.

  48. RMc says

    Oh look, another “I’m sorry you were offended by my offensive statement. I still think heterosexuals are superior but I’m not anti-gay”.

    NONpology rejected.

  49. bobbyjoe says

    In other words: “I’ve been taken out of context!

    No, wait, I’m not a bigot, I’m just really concerned with the redefinition of marriage!

    No, wait, it’s the internet’s fault!”

    Nice try, Grandpa Irons, but I– and hopefully a lot of other equality-minded viewers– still ain’t watching the third season of “The Borgias” ’til you come up with a legitimate apology for your offensive incest comparison and your transparently bigoted “separate but equal” argument.

  50. Diogenes says

    I didn’t read through most of the comments, but, from the ones I did read, I found a misunderstanding of Mr. Irons’ message. Also, I didn’t watch the clip, and I have based my understanding from this article alone.
    He’s speaking of a slippery slope scenario, of which I do not agree with whatsoever. The rights for homosexuals to marry doesn’t entail inter-family marriages. Regardless, the point I wish to make is that he doesn’t mention anything about incest. I’m assuming the father/son marriage he mentions is celibate and for tax purposes, as he has said. This is the scenario: a single father may be living with his only son who is no longer a dependent. They decide that it would be beneficial to be married and proceed to do so. This doesn’t entail that they will have sex as marriage does not necessarily entail sex. It is a legal contract. And, again, I don’t believe this will be the case because I don’t think fathers will be demanding to marry their sons or vice versa, or that people will be fighting for such cause.

  51. MCnNYC says

    And GLAAD is where on this “actor” ?
    Oh right they are playing ballsy with Bill Clinton and cashing checks instead of doing their F’N JOB!

  52. MCnNYC says

    You know…I wonder that if the Catholic Church were to bugger boys then I would be having incest with my extremely handsome son Max posits actor Jeremy Irons.

  53. giorgio says

    Are we to assume that he is also worried about a father marrying his own daughter?

  54. Bill says

    While Irons sounds really dumb in that interview, what he was possibly trying to express is the following. Marriage laws place limits on how closely two spouses can be related. In the U.S., the cutoff is 1st cousins, expressed as a consanguinity separation of 4 degrees. At least one state allows 4, but most require more than 4. The limits are set to prevent genetic defects due to inbreeding, which is not an issue for a same-sex marriage. Irons was possibly trying to point out that, if you just eliminated a restriction for same-sex couples because you thought cousins would be OK, and ended up allowing a father to marry his son because you forgot to add a new restriction, an unethical straight guy might take advantage of it for tax reasons.

    That isn’t quite so crazy – it just requires that one believe that one’s elected representatives are all incompetent idiots.

  55. Frank says

    @ Bill
    You consistently, in every thread about someone speaking HORRIFICALLY ignorantly about gay people, rush to their defense, say they misspoke, and attempt to rebrand their words to something they aren’t.


    Seriously, you’re credibility is already starting to be questioned. You’re on a mission to get us to see something that’s not there. Sometimes a bigot is a bigot and ignorance is ignorance and no matter how HARD you attempt to rewrite his words…..they were awful, insulting, hurtful to gay families.

  56. JoJo says

    I found Iron’s comments more awful than many of the crap we hear from the worst conservative political pundits. No excuses.

  57. Scott Kohansen says

    All these comparisons ad even MENTIONS of incest and beasiality and ANY other form of relationship compared to same sex is IGNORANT, VILE AND INEXCUSABLE.

    Period. End of story.

    The moment you even PUT our relationships as consenting adults in a sentence with a father and a son, and a goat and a human……YOU’RE DONE.

    And I as a gay man refuse to entertain hearing your argument because it devalues me as a human being.

  58. Hugh says

    Why should tax paying adult gay citizens sit idle while we have these heterosexuals discussing our rights, our worth and aligning our quest for equality with insulting slippery slopes? I’m sick and tired of having to sit here as a gay man and have privileged heterosexuals in comfy chairs pass crude judgments against our rights and our relationships.
    Enough is enough!

  59. Sly says

    What about your ‘debase’ comment, Mr. Irons?
    That was even more offensive. My gay marriage does not debase any marriage.

  60. Bill says

    @Frank: Just in case English is not your first language or just in case you have a reading comprehension problem, a comment that starts with “While Irons sounds really dumb in that interview” and that ends with “That isn’t quite so crazy” is hardly a comment defending him. It just says what he probably meant was less idiotic than what he actually said.

    Your problem, apparently, is that you have some deep psychological need to demonize anyone who says something you disagree with. If you want an example of this sort of behavior, look at the recent flap about Obama. At a fundraiser, he praised Attorney General Harris’ competence and then as an afterthought, added that she is very attractive, no doubt meant as a complement as they have been friends for some time. The media went into feeding frenzy mode and lots of people overreacted. Press accounts I saw would quote the part about her being attractive first, and then mention his favorable comments about her ability afterwards, giving the wrong impression as to what was an afterthought. The reaction on the part of some was a complete overreaction.

  61. Hagatha says

    Simple enough: do away with estate taxes. Problem solved.

    The sad thing here is that he (and many others) are so conditioned to thinking that something like an estate tax is perfectly normal and unlikely to be done away with that you have to take it into account. Estate taxes tax money that has already been taxed, sometimes already taxed twice. Real estate is taxed annually, such that you don’t really own land, you buy it and then rent it from the government.

  62. Bad Humor Boy says

    It is mystifying that proposing the practice of so simple a principle could generate such errant imaginings.

    Benjamin Franklin said: “The only things certain in life are death and taxes.” Few nations have comingled to two more inextricably than the UK.

    That notwithstanding, Jeremy Irons should not worry. The incest taboo isn’t under threat from death, taxes, or marriage equality!

  63. Xavier says

    If he was trying to stimulate a discussion on how redefining rules has unforeseen consequences, he went about in a most insulting manner (not in his demeanor but in the scenario attached to the overall debate). Standing laws not in consideration, it comes across as the same rhetoric used by those who oppose marriage equality who have no intend of having a civil debate and would debase attempts at such with talks of incest and beastality (their standard arsenal, used in racial equality as well). If he was doing shock and awe, he got shock and taxes instead.

  64. noteasilyoffended says

    I’m glad he’s speaking from the heart. I makes it crystal clear what his understanding and opinions are, however wrong and dated. It’s a tired, old, inaccurate discussion that sounds like it was had in the 1990’s. With every word he digs a deeper hole for himself to climb out of.

  65. diaphanous lunacies says

    Perhaps he is upset because of one of the reviews from a gay Herbert Ross film he made back in 1980. “It towers over nine out of ten other mindless entertainments currently playing.”

  66. Ryon says

    With a son as sexy as his, you’ve got to be wondering why he is so preoccupied with Father-Son marriage. Watch your ass Kid, Daddy’s coming.

  67. nick says

    This MORON seems to think that marriage equality for gays will necessitate writing a whole new set of marriage laws. He’s just an IDIOT. We are simply to be included in the EXITING law. Federal and all 50 states, and even EVERY country that allows marriage equality has EXITING law that prevents people nearer in kin than a certain degree from being able to marry, PERIOD. We are not about changing the law, only about being INCLUDED in it.

    STUPID, IDIOTIC, MORONS should do a modicum of fricking research before forming strong opinions, or opening their MORONIC pie-holes.

  68. Jim says

    I’d say this guy’s got some serious father-son issues dogging him. Mr. Irons, look up the word “projection.” Everyday the haters, phobes, and bigots leave me nearly speechless with all the loony things they say inadvertently about themselves. You’d think these dimwits would wise up and shut up. But no, they keep talking and keep exposing their depraved private inner life to the world. It’s shocking to see how sick some of these people really are.

  69. andrew says

    Those of you addressing “Duration & Convexity” don’t have to use that alias, you can direct your comments to Little Kiwi, “Duration & Convexity” is just one of his many aliases.

  70. Jack M says

    He seems more fixated on incest than on gays. If I were his son, I’d be a bit nervous at this point.

  71. emsellars says

    We should never jump to conclusions about the comments made on an on the spot interveiw. Even actors are human, despite the fact that they often are thought of as something more. Dare I state that had he been 100% pro-same sex marriage none of you would be saying a word. However, since hedoes not share your point of veiw you blast him with rude comments. He is from another country that is known for being conservative. He is also from an older generation of society. Anyone who knows anything about theman knows he is brutally honest and eccentric as are most actors…the eccentric portion I mean. The only difference is that he stood his ground whereas most stars will sell their soul to attain fame. Regardless if comments sting, be strong enough to let them roll off your back. Not everyone will agree with your every desire. However, majority wins and he is one man. Also sidenote….his son Max is a gorgeous man. If only to be stranded with him alone on a deserted isle. Oh my!

  72. xaviersx says

    Jeremy Irons, are you also concerned about father-daughter marriage, most places probably address it in some non gender specific law to cover the father / mother bases, but apparently over world hunger, war, environmental concerns, you are reflecting very deeply on taxes and same sex marriage between family. What’s going through the Iron head?