What… the f*ck.
We loved him in The Man In The Iron Mask (sup Leo), but c'mon!
Using a hypothetical argument that's imposed on a few hypothetical bad apples to justify why same sex marriage could potentially be hazardous is absurd!!
But unfortunately, Jeremy Irons has unleashed his concern of the legalization of same sex marriage, because HE worries that fathers will then marry their sons to avoid certain taxes.
In a recent interview, he theorized:
"Tax wise, it' s an interesting [question]. Could a father not marry his son?"
When then reminded of the laws against incest, he replied:
"It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from having …uh…inbreeding. But men don't breed. But men don't breed so incest wouldn't cover that. But if that was so, if I wanted to pass on my estate without estate duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him."
Uh.. we hate to burst his bubble, but the definition of incest is broader than breeding grounds, defined as the "sexual intercourse between family members and close relatives." Nothing specific about men and women there, Jeremy!
Regardless, he went on to clarify that taxes are the only concern he has, and that he wishes the best for everyone:
"Everybody who's living with one other person the best of luck in the world, because it's fantastic. Living with another animal, whether it be a husband or a dog, is great. It's lovely to have someone to love. I don't think sex matters at all. What it's called doesn't matter at all."
We realize Jeremy was just over-thinking the situation and possibly plays devil's advocate about everything, but dude… way to add fuel to the wrong side!
It really just sucks because there ARE laws against incest, and we're betting every same sex couple wishing to be married would happily welcome the same rule against family-on-family sex.
Because really, all we're wanting is equality.
Tags: incest, interview, jeremy irons, same sex marriage, taxes, what the actual fck