Jeremy Irons Still Doesn't Get That M...

Jeremy Irons Still Doesn't Get That Marriage Argument Absurd

There are 14 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Apr 6, 2013, titled Jeremy Irons Still Doesn't Get That Marriage Argument Absurd. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Actor Jeremy Irons offered up an explanation of his argument against same-sex marriage that still baffles the senses and seems to be out orbiting Neptune

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Apr 6, 2013
Who cates about what Hollywood people, or other actors, have to say about ANYTHING ?! Ignore them. they're just not relevant.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Apr 6, 2013
Consider the possibility that Irons is going senile, and is finding it difficult to distinguish between imagined and real.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#3 Apr 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
Consider the possibility that Irons is going senile, and is finding it difficult to distinguish between imagined and real.
From the sounds of the original interview, he sounds like he's high as a kite most of the time.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#4 Apr 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
Consider the possibility that Irons is going senile, and is finding it difficult to distinguish between imagined and real.
Didn't he used to be someone? I always thought HE was gay, to tell the truth.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Apr 7, 2013
Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
From the sounds of the original interview, he sounds like he's high as a kite most of the time.
He's always had a weird accent. Sort of Highlander trying to discipline himself to OxBridge. Still, he sounds like he's had too many brandy snifters before breakfast.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#6 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
He's always had a weird accent. Sort of Highlander trying to discipline himself to OxBridge. Still, he sounds like he's had too many brandy snifters before breakfast.
While fighting a terrible head cold.

Pity, I have really admired his work over the years.
Jack

Pekin, IL

#7 Apr 7, 2013
The fact remains that homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#8 Apr 7, 2013
Jeremy Irons is European. As such he is probably far more comfortable viewing things from a purely secular viewpoint than most of us in the US who have been steeped in religion. I think Jeremy Irons may have more of a point than many of us realize.

Now I can already hear SEI screaming, but give me chance to explain before y'all jump to conclusions. It seems to me that there are two definitions of marriage in this country. The religious/moral approach -- promoted by the churches -- is that Society, as represented by the Government, gives two people permission (a 'license') to be a couple and have sex, and raise a family if they choose to do so. To qualify, they have to meet certain moral criteria (which has so far EXcluded familial bonds and same gender couples). This is why the anti-gay argue so vehemnently that they do not want this definition changed, and why many gay people contend that same gender couples are as morally qualified for this role as heterosexuals. They're fighting over morals, and missing the point.

The other definition -- MY definition -- is a more secular one. The Government has no business giving PERMISSION for two people to live together -- they'll do that whatever society says or thinks. All the govenment does in a secular marriage is to recognize that two consenting adulsts are legally pooling their financial resources for whatever purpose. A very popular purpose is to raise children. Another is simply for companionship. This is the definition we should defend for EVERY citizen, instead of wasting our time arguing about the religious definition.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#9 Apr 7, 2013
For example, if two 'maiden' aunts -- let's say sisters (and we've all known such examples)-- have lived together for 50 years, why should the government not recognize them as a unit for the purposes of Social Security inheritance benefits, etc.? Only the religionists will scream 'incest!'-- specifically because of their moral outrage. But sex may be the last thing on those sisters minds; all they care about is companionship and each others' wellbeing as they get older. Why should inheritance tax be imposed upon them and not upon the straight couple of 50 years who lives right next to them? The same may apply to a divorced man with children, whose elderly father has lived with him for a number of years and functions as the children's second parent. What's wrong with it if those two adults want to pool their financial resources in the eyes of the law?!'Incest'?-- Give me a break!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#10 Apr 7, 2013
Jack wrote:
I am DAVID MOORE of S. 18th Sreet, Pekin, Illinois.
FINALLY, you admit it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#11 Apr 8, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
For example, if two 'maiden' aunts -- let's say sisters (and we've all known such examples)-- have lived together for 50 years, why should the government not recognize them as a unit for the purposes of Social Security inheritance benefits, etc.? Only the religionists will scream 'incest!'-- specifically because of their moral outrage. But sex may be the last thing on those sisters minds; all they care about is companionship and each others' wellbeing as they get older. Why should inheritance tax be imposed upon them and not upon the straight couple of 50 years who lives right next to them? The same may apply to a divorced man with children, whose elderly father has lived with him for a number of years and functions as the children's second parent. What's wrong with it if those two adults want to pool their financial resources in the eyes of the law?!'Incest'?-- Give me a break!
Moot.

If the parties are already related, no familial relationship needs to be recognized through the Civil Marriage contract. Inheritance laws are already in place. Social Security is another matter, and very confusing.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#12 Apr 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Moot.
If the parties are already related, no familial relationship needs to be recognized through the Civil Marriage contract. Inheritance laws are already in place. Social Security is another matter, and very confusing.
So if Social Security is 'very confusing' then it isn't moot, is it? And inheritance laws do not apply between parents and children. In my second example above, if the senior parent were left taking care of the children he would still have to pay inheritance tax on the son's estate, unlike married heterosexual couples were the spouse inherits without paying any taxes.

But ... all this illustrates that Government has no business getting into the 'marriage' business in the first place and providing financial breaks for some based on questionable moral criteria.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Apr 9, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
So if Social Security is 'very confusing' then it isn't moot, is it? And inheritance laws do not apply between parents and children. In my second example above, if the senior parent were left taking care of the children he would still have to pay inheritance tax on the son's estate, unlike married heterosexual couples were the spouse inherits without paying any taxes.
But ... all this illustrates that Government has no business getting into the 'marriage' business in the first place and providing financial breaks for some based on questionable moral criteria.
I didn't consider the inheritance tax in the adult child to parent direction. It's not an issue in the case of a minor child.

Point surrendered.

I just don't like the postulated "solution". lol

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#14 Apr 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't consider the inheritance tax in the adult child to parent direction. It's not an issue in the case of a minor child.
Point surrendered.
I just don't like the postulated "solution". lol
You're absolutely right -- it's no solution, certainly not one that I'm proposing. But I just wanted to point out to Sei and others that there is value in trying to understanding where people are coming from before we start screaming at them simply because they dared to use a word (e.g.'incest') in a different context than our own definition permits. We do ourselves no favors by getting incensed at people who are basically on our side.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 min mjjcpa 34,813
News Prosecutors say sex-abuse charges against gay r... 12 min Flordia Gator 4
News Venice mayor says no gay pride parade in my cit... 16 min Flordia Gator 10
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 40 min Wondering 1,041
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 1 hr Termiraider 7,198
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 2 hr QUITTNER Aug 29 2015 3
News Plaintiffs seek to block Miss. ban on gay coupl... 5 hr The Stealth 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 25,621
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 8,765
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 6 hr too lazy to log in 198
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 6 hr Rainbow Kid 2,932
More from around the web