If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "Strange" doesn't quite cover the full-on whackjobness of Jeremy Irons' ramblings on gay marriage   (salon.com) divider line 58
    More: Strange, Jeremy Irons, Helen Mirren  
•       •       •

3265 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 04 Apr 2013 at 12:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 12:16:54 PM
So if that were so, then if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him."

Makes sense. If Simba had married Mufasa, there's no way Scar would've been able to usurp the throne.
 
2013-04-04 12:27:58 PM
He doesn't go on a rambling. He actually brings up an interesting point. And you know, somewhere, some rich guy would take advantage of that loophole. You know that to be true, yes? Yet the article goes on to say, he's right, but we are sure nothing like that would ever happen, so they lost me then. If he goes full-on hate-mongering, I apologize for standing on the, "not so bad" side of the line. DRTFA.

But here's a question. If marriage is a religious ceremony, can atheists not get married?
 
2013-04-04 12:32:47 PM
That Cardinal Borgia, I tell ya...
 
2013-04-04 12:35:21 PM
Jeremy Irons?  Strange?

You have no idea.
 
2013-04-04 12:53:36 PM
This is the guy who said, iirc, that women should view a nice slap on their ass as a compliment.
 
2013-04-04 12:58:56 PM
Please, please, for the love of all that is holy: RTFA before you chime in.

-kthnxbye
 
2013-04-04 01:04:14 PM
Methinks Mr. Irons never came back out of character from those Cronenberg films.
 
2013-04-04 01:04:16 PM
Jeremy's iron.
 
2013-04-04 01:06:05 PM
That headline is three words too long
 
2013-04-04 01:17:29 PM
He really needs to think a bit before making some of those statements...

could a father not marry his son?

I don't know, farkwit, can he not marry his daughter?
 
2013-04-04 01:22:05 PM

Mangoose: He doesn't go on a rambling. He actually brings up an interesting point. And you know, somewhere, some rich guy would take advantage of that loophole. You know that to be true, yes? Yet the article goes on to say, he's right, but we are sure nothing like that would ever happen, so they lost me then. If he goes full-on hate-mongering, I apologize for standing on the, "not so bad" side of the line. DRTFA.

But here's a question. If marriage is a religious ceremony, can atheists not get married?



Irons is really just talking out of his ass about something that was already covered in the Civil Partnership Act of 2004, which he would know if bothered spending five minutes looking it up.

"First, there is the range of persons within prohibited degrees of relationship with whom it is not possible to enter a civil partnership.46 This range is the equivalent to that for marriage, but with the necessary changes of gender47

47 E.g. a man cannot marry his mother or sister and cannot enter a civil partnership with his father or brother. "
 
2013-04-04 01:25:35 PM
Wow, what a creep.
 
2013-04-04 01:28:55 PM
img571.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-04 01:31:10 PM
He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

With that said - consenting adults should be able to whatever consenting adults want to to as long as nobody loses and eye and everyone is home by ten.

Call him stupid all you want, but you're missing the bigger discussion in America about that discimination of those who don't fit into a certain religious mold.
 
2013-04-04 01:35:33 PM
Every time something like this comes up, I think about my uncle and his son. My uncle is a Methodist minister, and his son is gay.

My uncle acknowledges that the teachings of the Methodist Church include defining homosexuality (or at least homosexual behavior) as a sin. He agrees that his son is a sinner. He also agrees that he himself is a sinner - that everyone is a sinner.

He was interviewed by the local paper about it, actually. He pointed out that Christ himself never defined homosexual behavior - or any sexual sin - as condemning someone to Hell. Christ, when he talked about anyone being condemned to Hell, almost always described the fallen as those who wouldn't help the poor, the powerless, or the downtrodden. To my uncle, that made him think that the people who drive their expensive SUVs past the guy on the corner asking for some food are committing a much graver sin than his son who loves another man. He doesn't understand why so many Christians focus on homosexuality like it is somehow a much graver sin than the things Christ actually talked about.

I myself am not religious, so the whole concept of sin doesn't mean much to me, but I do think my uncle made some excellent points.
 
2013-04-04 01:52:36 PM

bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.


Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.
 
2013-04-04 01:52:40 PM
What I got from that:

First he was like...
www.animationsource.org

Then he was all...
3.bp.blogspot.com

The guy who played arguable the gayest Disney animal character that could speak in the last 30 years is totally overthinking the situation.

/Yes, even gayer than Timon and Pumba
 
2013-04-04 01:54:48 PM

Mangoose: But here's a question. If marriage is a religious ceremony, can atheists not get married?


I managed it.
 
2013-04-04 02:01:31 PM

Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.


Uh... how would that happen?  We're talking about the supreme court here - they don't "widen definitions" nor do they write law.  I know you think you sound smart here, but you're not really familiar with what is actually going on here.

Nobody said anything about "turtle farking," so I'm a little confused as to why you brought that up.  Is that something you think about?
 
2013-04-04 02:10:54 PM
I'm pretty sure that a couple of guys that want to fark each other and are related aren't exactly going to turn up to the registry office to make it public.

Gay incest: all stigma of homosexuality multiplied by the even bigger stigma of incest
 
ecl
2013-04-04 02:11:33 PM

bradkanus: Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.

Uh... how would that happen?  We're talking about the supreme court here - they don't "widen definitions" nor do they write law.  I know you think you sound smart here, but you're not really familiar with what is actually going on here.

Nobody said anything about "turtle farking," so I'm a little confused as to why you brought that up.  Is that something you think about?



(favorite: father is a male prostitute)I don't bargain with sons of whores.
 
2013-04-04 02:12:15 PM

Lord Dimwit: ...He pointed out that Christ himself never defined homosexual behavior - or any sexual sin - as condemning someone to Hell. Christ, when he talked about anyone being condemned to Hell, almost always described the fallen as those who wouldn't help the poor, the powerless, or the downtrodden. To my uncle, that made him think that the people who drive their expensive SUVs past the guy on the corner asking for some food are committing a much graver sin than his son who loves another man. He doesn't understand why so many Christians focus on homosexuality like it is somehow a much graver sin than the things Christ actually talked about...


As a Christian (Methodist, actually!), this is exactly how I feel. I don't see why focusing one one very specific aspect of a person as the end-all of all sin, to the exclusion of actually doing anything else at all that Christ asked us to do, is so important to so much of the religious community. It's very sad.
 
2013-04-04 02:20:43 PM
You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.
 
2013-04-04 02:24:28 PM

barneyfifesbullet: You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.


Yes - in a way liberals are always trying to create a "protected class" of people and they get all pissy when people they didn't intend to put in that class want to join.
 
2013-04-04 02:33:29 PM
cartoonbank.licensestream.com
 
2013-04-04 02:33:35 PM
I really didn't get much of an anti-gay vibe from his statements.

Poutrage: postponed
 
2013-04-04 02:49:34 PM
Suck it, Profion!
 
2013-04-04 02:53:21 PM
oldfarthenry:
Methinks Mr. Irons never came back out of character from those Cronenberg films.

And I was going to say "Wait, isn't this the guy who played twin gynecologists in love with a woman with two uteruses, and he thinks gay marriage is weird?".
 
2013-04-04 02:55:29 PM

Hetfield: I really didn't get much of an anti-gay vibe from his statements.

Poutrage: postponed


It's not so much anti-gay as it is bizarre false equivalency. He seems to be saying that if we let gays get marry then why can't a father marry his son because it's not like they'll create any incest babies.

Although it is kind of a funny observation for him to make if you've ever seen Damage.

/no, he doesn't marry his own son in that movie
 
2013-04-04 03:02:08 PM

Lord Dimwit: Every time something like this comes up, I think about my uncle and his son. My uncle is a Methodist minister, and his son is gay.

My uncle acknowledges that the teachings of the Methodist Church include defining homosexuality (or at least homosexual behavior) as a sin. He agrees that his son is a sinner. He also agrees that he himself is a sinner - that everyone is a sinner.

He was interviewed by the local paper about it, actually. He pointed out that Christ himself never defined homosexual behavior - or any sexual sin - as condemning someone to Hell. Christ, when he talked about anyone being condemned to Hell, almost always described the fallen as those who wouldn't help the poor, the powerless, or the downtrodden. To my uncle, that made him think that the people who drive their expensive SUVs past the guy on the corner asking for some food are committing a much graver sin than his son who loves another man. He doesn't understand why so many Christians focus on homosexuality like it is somehow a much graver sin than the things Christ actually talked about.


Because those so-called downtrodden are only in that position because they're the 47% who want free gifts as opposed to pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. I've been on food stamps and welfare. Did anyone help me out? No
 
2013-04-04 03:09:27 PM

bradkanus: Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.

Uh... how would that happen?  We're talking about the supreme court here - they don't "widen definitions" nor do they write law.  I know you think you sound smart here, but you're not really familiar with what is actually going on here.

Nobody said anything about "turtle farking," so I'm a little confused as to why you brought that up.  Is that something you think about?


Again, just how would allowing same-sex couples to marry count as a slippery slope? There are laws baring incestuous marriage, which Mr. Irons is so concerned about, as well as polygamy, which you seem to be so concerned with.

As for turtle farking... you're smart and you've been around here for a while. You figure it out.
 
2013-04-04 03:25:59 PM
NOW IS YOUR TIME TO DIE!!!


\for the 1% of Farkers who remember the ads for the D&D movie
 
2013-04-04 03:31:02 PM
Ehrmagod! But if a bunch people in the UK start to inbreed... how will we be able to tell them apart from their royal family.
 
2013-04-04 03:43:14 PM
OK lets try this again

The CIVIL Marriage license is a civil contract, this civil contract limits the  number of said participants to 2.  The State has a vested interest in limiting the number of participants since the  said contract has to be dissolved by the State, additionally the  contract is structured so that neither party can gain a majority of control of the  contract, adding additional participants changes that since participants can work in unison to gain control.  This has been evidenced by polygamous marriages, yet their supporters have come forth with no sound remedy for this issue, when that does occur then perhaps we can talk.

Now as for incestuous marriages,due to the  inherent issues of coercion to enter one by a familial member this is not allowed, this is also why an adoptive parent cannot marry their adopted child even though there are no biological issues involved if they  breed.  Additionally a child has a familial relationship that grants them certain rights and privileges such as inheritance hospital visitation etc.  I do not see a legitimate argument that will override the issues of coercion in these cases  The same criteria also applies to pedophilia marriage as well as a minors inability to give consent to enter into the  contract.

Now as to the  Turtle Farkers, well when your turtle can swear before a Judge and tell that judge that it wants to be your
"partner"  then we can discuss it.
.
 
2013-04-04 03:45:53 PM

Egalitarian: NOW IS YOUR TIME TO DIE!!!


\for the 1% of Farkers who remember the ads for the D&D movie


That movie pissed me off when I saw it in the theater. I thought it made the fantasy genre look so stupid that it would kill the genre before Lord of the Rings came out.

Now it's one of my favorite "so bad it's good" movies.
 
2013-04-04 03:49:42 PM

Galvatron Zero: He really needs to think a bit before making some of those statements...

could a father not marry his son?

I don't know, farkwit, can he not marry his daughter?


According to TFA, no, a father cannot marry his daughter.

Sounds like he was just talking about the odd and awkward legal problems that might pop up no one is anticipating but isn't saying that's a reason not to allow it.
 
2013-04-04 03:53:14 PM

Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.

Uh... how would that happen?  We're talking about the supreme court here - they don't "widen definitions" nor do they write law.  I know you think you sound smart here, but you're not really familiar with what is actually going on here.

Nobody said anything about "turtle farking," so I'm a little confused as to why you brought that up.  Is that something you think about?

Again, just how would allowing same-sex couples to marry count as a slippery slope? There are laws baring incestuous marriage, which Mr. Irons is so concerned about, as well as polygamy, which you seem to be so concerned with.

As for turtle farking... you're smart and you've been around here for a while. You figure it out.


You mean like the laws banning gay marriage?  Those laws?  So we can change the laws and definition of marriage for teh gheys, but suggesting that the same thinking that got us here will not once again be the argument when the laws against polygamy and incest and age restrictions are next to be challenged.  Didn't all of the hyperbole and equal signs in red boxes teach us that the government has no right to tell us who we can marry?  Even though it currently restricts blood relatives from doing so, or those not of legal age, or those who are mentally unable to understand or give consent, or those who are already married from marrying someone else, and so on and so on.  

/apparently, you need to review the definition of the phrase "slippery slope".
 
2013-04-04 03:55:44 PM

Azlefty: OK lets try this again

The CIVIL Marriage license is a civil contract, this civil contract limits the  number of said participants to 2.  The State has a vested interest in limiting the number of participants since the  said contract has to be dissolved by the State, additionally the  contract is structured so that neither party can gain a majority of control of the  contract, adding additional participants changes that since participants can work in unison to gain control.  This has been evidenced by polygamous marriages, yet their supporters have come forth with no sound remedy for this issue, when that does occur then perhaps we can talk.

Now as for incestuous marriages,due to the  inherent issues of coercion to enter one by a familial member this is not allowed, this is also why an adoptive parent cannot marry their adopted child even though there are no biological issues involved if they  breed.  Additionally a child has a familial relationship that grants them certain rights and privileges such as inheritance hospital visitation etc.  I do not see a legitimate argument that will override the issues of coercion in these cases  The same criteria also applies to pedophilia marriage as well as a minors inability to give consent to enter into the  contract.

Now as to the  Turtle Farkers, well when your turtle can swear before a Judge and tell that judge that it wants to be your
"partner"  then we can discuss it.
.

images.starpulse.com

Wut?
 
2013-04-04 04:03:43 PM
So two consenting adults that find themselves attracted to each other can't be together because society frowns on a brother and sister loving each other in that special way?

/Doesn't have any siblings
//Assumes you guessed that by now
 
2013-04-04 04:05:26 PM

Otto_E_Rodika: Azlefty: OK lets try this again

The CIVIL Marriage license is a civil contract, this civil contract limits the  number of said participants to 2.  The State has a vested interest in limiting the number of participants since the  said contract has to be dissolved by the State, additionally the  contract is structured so that neither party can gain a majority of control of the  contract, adding additional participants changes that since participants can work in unison to gain control.  This has been evidenced by polygamous marriages, yet their supporters have come forth with no sound remedy for this issue, when that does occur then perhaps we can talk.

Now as for incestuous marriages,due to the  inherent issues of coercion to enter one by a familial member this is not allowed, this is also why an adoptive parent cannot marry their adopted child even though there are no biological issues involved if they  breed.  Additionally a child has a familial relationship that grants them certain rights and privileges such as inheritance hospital visitation etc.  I do not see a legitimate argument that will override the issues of coercion in these cases  The same criteria also applies to pedophilia marriage as well as a minors inability to give consent to enter into the  contract.

Now as to the  Turtle Farkers, well when your turtle can swear before a Judge and tell that judge that it wants to be your
"partner"  then we can discuss it.
.
[images.starpulse.com image 470x505]

Wut?


Woody Allen never adopted her. She was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow. Allen and Farrow were together, but he never adopted Soon-Yi.

(Note that I'm not condoning Allen's actions, just pointing out that it isn't a case of marriage between adoptive parents and children.)
 
2013-04-04 04:14:11 PM

barneyfifesbullet: You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.


I predict you will be as right about this as you were about, say, the election.
 
2013-04-04 04:21:15 PM

barneyfifesbullet: You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.


*checks Argentina*
*checks Belgium*
*checks Canada*
*checks Denmark*
*checks Iceland*
*checks the Netherlands*
*checks Norway*
*checks Portugal*
*checks South Africa*
*checks Spain*
*checks Sweden*
*checks Connecticut, DC, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington*

Nope, none of that has happened in any of those places. At all.

So, you know. Yeah.
 
2013-04-04 04:27:20 PM

Tigger: barneyfifesbullet: You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.

I predict you will be as right about this as you were about, say, the election anything you have ever posted here.


/FTFY
 
2013-04-04 04:28:09 PM
Still trying to figure out how this is anti-gay (FTFA):

"I think the lawyers are going to have a field day on same sex marriage," he continued, adding, "I just wish everybody who's living with one other person the best of luck in the world. It's fantastic."

Sounds like he has a problem with lawyers to me.
 
2013-04-04 04:38:46 PM

Hetfield: I really didn't get much of an anti-gay vibe from his statements.

Poutrage: postponed


Me neither.  But what do I know.
 
2013-04-04 05:06:03 PM

Rufus_T_Firefly: Please, please, for the love of all that is holy: RTFA before you chime in.

-kthnxbye


Ha, yeah I'm gonna get right on it.
 
2013-04-04 07:55:46 PM

nekom: Jeremy's iron.


Well, that was very good ... for a first try.

You know what? I have a ball! Perhaps you'd like to bounce it?
 
2013-04-04 08:42:46 PM
Scar, you're dead to me now.
 
2013-04-04 09:20:27 PM
How about "Whatever occurs between consenting adults is none of the government's business"

Sound good?
 
2013-04-04 09:32:15 PM
Jeremy Irons is the stereotypical rutting heterosexual. Only a virile straight guy puts down the duckie

SO HE CAN DANCE THE CHARLESTON!

i449.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report