Jeremy Irons's bizarre objection to gay marriage by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

There seems to be a new talking point going around some circles of right-wing whackos these days, where they're supposed to disavow any "fear" of gay marriage and claim that it's a "lie" to say they "fear" it.

But then you have someone posting articles titled "Gay Marriage Will Destroy America", and it certainly SOUNDS fearful.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3002912/posts

Or does the author fervently HOPE that American will be destroyed?

And there are other articles from the right, like "What I Fear Society Is Coming To", replete with the lists of things about gay marriage that "scare" the author, and things about it which cause him "fear".

Quote:
I took many of my fears from the excellent book Marriage Under Fire by Dr. James Dobson, but I’m not just regurgitating them: I really am scared of what the effects of this will be on our society and my family.

http://cooperjr.name/2004/10/19/what-i-fear-society-is-coming-to/

Clearly this idea that it's all a "lie", that there is no one on the right saying they "fear" gay marriage, is itself a lie born out of fear.

And if Jeremy Irons wants to gay marry his son, his taxes are really the least of his issues.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 5, 2013 7:37 PM

America loves a winner!

" gay " marry his son ? I thought the point was to redefine marriage.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
" gay " marry his son ? I thought the point was to redefine marriage.

To "redefine" it, first you'd have to define it. You've been singularly unable to do so for years now. You blurt out something along the lines of "10,000 years of human society!" and run away, never providing anything more than your basic "because I believe it, therefore it is so" line of reasoning.

If you can't define marriage based on anything other than religious texts (which are all over the map, even if you look at one of them, such as the christian bible, which seems to define marriage several different ways), then you really can't "redefine" it, can you?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:39 AM

*facepalm*

What a moron.

How many men are marrying their daughters to avoid the estate tax? How many woman are marrying their sons? If it's not a problem for hetero marriage, why does it become a problem for gay marriage?

Or perhaps Jeremy Irons believes that women cannot be involved in the passing on of wealth. How very Neanderthal of him.

BTW, Colbert did a brilliant mimic of Irons Thursday night.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 11:25 AM

M4P: Exactly.

This old ruse - "people will abuse the system, so we better not do it!" - is played out; it's cliché. People will abuse ANY system; is that a reason to do nothing?

Shall we outlaw opposite-sex marriage? People abuse the fuck out of that all the time. Ask Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 12:59 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
*facepalm*

What a moron.

How many men are marrying their daughters to avoid the estate tax? How many woman are marrying their sons? If it's not a problem for hetero marriage, why does it become a problem for gay marriage?

They cant. Which is you missing the point.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 1:15 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"How many woman are marrying their sons?"

"They cant." (sic)

What can't women do? Own property? Be wealthy enough to have an estate tax? Write a will?

What do you mean?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"How many woman are marrying their sons?"

"They cant." (sic)

What can't women do? Own property? Be wealthy enough to have an estate tax? Write a will?

What do you mean?

Somehow in Rappy's tiny lizard brain, legalized same-sex marriage means a man can marry his son, but legalized opposite-sex marriage still means a man can't marry his daughter, or a woman marry her son.

It's how his brain works. Or doesn't.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 1:37 PM

Also, Irons is more of an idiot than I originally thought.

"It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding. But men don't breed..."

Riiiiiiiiight. Men don't breed. Only women breed. Sounds like an Alice Cooper song. [/sarcasm]

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Somehow in Rappy's tiny lizard brain, legalized same-sex marriage means a man can marry his son, but legalized opposite-sex marriage still means a man can't marry his daughter, or a woman marry her son.

Astutely explained.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 2:11 PM

DREAMTROVE

I'm sorry, are you guys disagreeing with Rap agreeing with y'all? Did I miss something?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 6, 2013 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
I'm sorry, are you guys disagreeing with Rap agreeing with y'all? Did I miss something?

I'm sorry, is this what you call Rappy agreeing with us?

Quote:
He was merely making the astute point that, legally, there very well could be more of these things to come down the road of unintended consequences.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 3:02 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"How many woman are marrying their sons?"

"They cant." (sic)

What can't women do? Own property? Be wealthy enough to have an estate tax? Write a will?

What do you mean?

Somehow in Rappy's tiny lizard brain, legalized same-sex marriage means a man can marry his son, but legalized opposite-sex marriage still means a man can't marry his daughter, or a woman marry her son.

It's how his brain works. Or doesn't.

I'm not the one who said it, genius.
And both of you are idiots, and or didn't read the article. Women can't marry their sons for the same reason men can't marry their daughters. The issue of incest being the key here. In Mr. Irons' remarks, he clearly pointed this out, and explained why same sex family 'marriage' can't be objected to by the same legal arguments as would be for opposite sex siblings or mother-son, father-daughter.

Now, carry on butchering up that reply, if you must.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:03 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

DT, I can't actually figure out if he IS agreeing or disagreeing. His point about mother/son or father/daughter--is it true the only law(s) against "incestual" marriage go that way? Or is it that ANY parent can't marry ANY child? If the latter, then his point is irrelevant, tho' yes, Mal4 missed it. But if the laws DO only go one way, that's stupid.

As to Irons, hmmmm, I got tricked. He plays--and looks like--a very smart character, since I've never caught him in an interview, I've never heard him speak for himself. But his concept is certainly stupid, just one more ignorant attempt to find a "reason" against same-sex marriage.

Essentially: Everything in the world can be used for good or ill. Everything, period. Every time man comes up with something, someone finds a way to use it for ill. To think up stupid reasons how they CAN is about as ridiculous as one can imagine, since, as mentioned, people already abuse marriage and there will no doubt be those who WILL try to marry dogs, cars, whatever; that in no way negates the fact that it's simply right, that it's a matter of equal rights and if there are things that come up, they can and will be dealt with, if necessary. Prime example: The internet. Magnificent thing; how many ways has it been turned to harm, and don't we come up with laws against those things when they happen? By Irons' logic, we should do away with the internet.

I THOUGHT, from the title, Rap was agreeing that it's a bizarre objection...I still kinda do, I think he got trapped into defending what he thinks is stupid too. I could certainly be wrong; he only needs say he agrees the argument is stupid and we could go on from there. I can't quite imagine anyone finding Irons' comments anything BUT ridiculous, but what do I know? I'm just surprised to discover Irons is that ignorant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 4:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
But his concept is certainly stupid, just one more ignorant attempt to find a "reason" against same-sex marriage.

Is it stupid, or is he merely making a valid point, which goes to show how convoluted our legal system is, and nothing more ? Just because you, me and Jeremy Irons may agree that it IS " stupid ", doesn't mean that there isn't some legal wiggle room for something like this to take place. That's all I see in his statements.

As to Irons' ignorance, what do you mean ? Ignorance of the future ? Of how humans will react to a new set of rules ? Help me out here.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"How many woman are marrying their sons?"

"They cant." (sic)

What can't women do? Own property? Be wealthy enough to have an estate tax? Write a will?

What do you mean?

Somehow in Rappy's tiny lizard brain, legalized same-sex marriage means a man can marry his son, but legalized opposite-sex marriage still means a man can't marry his daughter, or a woman marry her son.

It's how his brain works. Or doesn't.

I'm not the one who said it, genius.
And both of you are idiots, and or didn't read the article. Women can't marry their sons for the same reason men can't marry their daughters. The issue of incest being the key here. In Mr. Irons' remarks, he clearly pointed this out, and explained why same sex family 'marriage' can't be objected to by the same legal arguments as would be for opposite sex siblings or mother-son, father-daughter.

Now, carry on butchering up that reply, if you must.

Can you define "incest" for us? I think you don't have a clear understanding of what it is. And I'm pretty sure Jeremy Irons doesn't.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:51 AM

What I'm asking here is, do you think it's only "incest" if it carries the possibility of pregnancy? If one or the other party cannot produce offspring, is it still incest in your eyes?

Irons's argument seems to be that since father-son marriages can't produce offspring, they aren't *really* incest, and would be legal. If close relatives are having sex, with or without the possibility of having children from that sex, it's incest.

And in a surprising number of states, that's legal in lots of cases. Well, so long as it's between men and women, at least. Why no outcry about hill folk marrying their first cousin to avoid the estate tax? I bet it's a lot more common than fathers marrying their sons!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:56 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Now, carry on butchering up that reply, if you must.

Can you define "incest" for us? I think you don't have a clear understanding of what it is. And I'm pretty sure Jeremy Irons doesn't.

Well, that didn't take long.

Seriously, why do you even bother w/ such an inane post ? To go off on a pointless, irrelevant tanget like the meaning of incest ?

Really ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What I'm asking here is, do you think it's only "incest" if it carries the possibility of pregnancy? If one or the other party cannot produce offspring, is it still incest in your eyes?

Irons's argument seems to be that since father-son marriages can't produce offspring, they aren't *really* incest, and would be legal. If close relatives are having sex, with or without the possibility of having children from that sex, it's incest.

And in a surprising number of states, that's legal in lots of cases. Well, so long as it's between men and women, at least. Why no outcry about hill folk marrying their first cousin to avoid the estate tax? I bet it's a lot more common than fathers marrying their sons!

Yep. Iron's theory is built on one the usual dumb arguments against gay marriage. Marry as an institution does not exist solely for procreation. No hetero couple has to prove they are capable of producing offspring and intend to do so before they are allowed to be legally wed.

Since procreation is not the sole reason for marriage, it is not the sole reason to disallow marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Now, carry on butchering up that reply, if you must.

Can you define "incest" for us? I think you don't have a clear understanding of what it is. And I'm pretty sure Jeremy Irons doesn't.

Well, that didn't take long.

Seriously, why do you even bother w/ such an inane post ? To go off on a pointless, irrelevant tanget [sic] like the meaning of incest ?

Really ?

Soooo... No, then? You can't define it?

BTW, are you in the car again?

You and Mr. Irons seem to have this idea that if there's no chance of offspring, there's no incest issues, so no roadblock to marriage.

I was just trying to clarify if you have any idea what you're talking about; it's pretty clear Jeremy Irons does not. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

By the way, for the record, do you support his slippery slope argument, or reject it?

I'll hang up and listen, as you're so fond of saying.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:38 AM

America loves a winner!

Mr Irons is merely correctly stating that the laws against incestual relations are primarily due to the genetic problems which result from the offspring.

You really must have no life to speak of to waste anyone's time going on about this trivial sidebar.

I think Mr Irons makes a valid point. Whether or not we'll ever see such marriages as he describes, I think is doubtful in my life time. That it's unlikely to occur doesn't dismiss the legal loop hole from existing.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Mr Irons is merely correctly stating that the laws against incestual relations are primarily due to the genetic problems which result from the offspring.

You really must have no life to speak of to waste anyone's time going on about this trivial sidebar.

You posted it. Now you don't want to discuss it?

It's always cute when you spend so much time posting in a thread that YOU initiated, then when you feel boxed in by questions you can't or won't answer, you throw up your hands and accuse everybody else of having no life.

So you posted this because you wanted to discuss it, presumably, but now I have no life because I'm trying to clarify your take on it?

I'm merely pointing out that Mr. Irons's basic premise is deeply flawed. He says a man screwing his son isn't incest; that says to me he has no idea at all what the hell he's talking about (but it sounds like he just really wants to fuck his own child).

You say it's *primarily* about inbreeding, but it's not JUST about that, is it? If it were, then related people who were unable to produce offspring could be married already. Yet as you correctly point out, "they cant". Why is that? Why can't a mother past menopause marry her son, or a father with a vasectomy marry his daughter? Why is that illegal even when no offspring can come of such a union? It's more than just the possibility of offspring, isn't it?

Answer that, and you'll see where Jeremy Irons got his basic starting point for his argument so wrong.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:52 AM

Added to address your edit/addition:

Quote:

I think Mr Irons makes a valid point. Whether or not we'll ever see such marriages as he describes, I think is doubtful in my life time. That it's unlikely to occur doesn't dismiss the legal loop hole from existing.

What "legal loophole" exists?

You seem to be desperate to deny equal rights to a vast number of people based on something that you yourself say is "unlikely to occur" - and something which is still illegal in most if not all states.

Are there any states in this country where a man can legally marry his sister if she cannot have children, or he cannot father children?

Has anyone challenged such laws?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:59 AM

America loves a winner!

You're really not that bright, are you Kwickie ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 8:09 AM

Still waiting for that "legal loophole" you're worrying about.

Someone shoots 20 children, and you have zero problem with it, but by golly, somebody might conceivably - probably not in your lifetime, you say - TRY to marry their son to avoid taxes? SOUND THE ALARM!

Once again, you're trying to sell fear. Fear of incestuous gay marriages, this time.

You're a lot like Louie Gohmert, who tries to say that if you limit gun magazine capacity, then people will marry their pets.

Limiting the number of rounds, Gohmert said, is “kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman anymore, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?" [That is an actual quote from a sitting U.S. Representative.]

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

You're really not that bright, are you Kwickie ?

So you still can't answer the question.

I guess that's the last we'll see of you in this thread, then.

Buh-bye!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 8:25 AM

OMG too funny. He calls his own thread a trival time-waster LOL!

Only from the Rap!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 8:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OMG too funny. He calls his own thread a trival time-waster LOL!

Only from the Rap!

I did nothing of the sort. Go back and re-read Kwickie's mindless point on the definition of incest.

Maybe you'll get it.

Kinda doubt it though.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 9:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is getting nowhere, and I don't see why Rap won't answer the question.

Does he think incest laws are only about one or another kind of male/female incest? I'm not going to take time to look, but I BELIEVE laws against incest don't refer to the sex of either party, merely sex between close relatives.

Second, is he saying Irons' remarks are valid? It really seems like he put this up to post something he titled "bizarre", but now it seems like he's defending Irons' remarks. Very confusing.

Re: Irons himself, apparently he's not quite all that bright on matters of a sexual nature:

Quote:
In February he revealed that as a young actor he had to fend off the advances of older men and defended an earlier interview in the Radio Times in which he said “any woman worth her salt can deal with [being patted on the bottom].”

Speaking to the Times newspaper, Irons claimed his remarks about bottom patting were “misquoted”, explaining: “I love touching. I always touch people. I don’t think I said ‘bottom’ [in the Radio Times interview] but of course I was misquoted. Basically, I said that any self-respecting woman would tell you to f*** off [if she minded].”

He went on to explain: “I think we’re very robust as human beings. I had people when I was younger trying to feel me up. Older men. I just told them to get lost.”

The Radio Times journalist, Andrew Duncan, who conducted the "bottom patting" interview two years ago, says he stands by his quotes: “I am surprised Jeremy Irons continues to insist he was 'of course misquoted' in a 2011 interview I wrote for the Radio Times, particularly as I sent him a tape of the interview and a transcript after he complained that he didn't say 'any woman worth her salt' can cope with a man putting his hand on her behind."

Given his looks, I'm not at all surprised to learn Irons had to fend off pedophiliac advances as a child. I'm not sure he has any grasp of all the complications of "fending off", which says to me he's not very bright or hasn't thought about it much, one or the other...

But his concept that a man would marry his son to avoid taxes is weird...people try all kinds of things to gain advantage; so what?! People leave inheritances to dogs, and many other things; what has that got to do with the right of 99.9999% of people to marry the person they love? I don't get it. And I wish Rap would just answer the questions above, so I could understand what he is arguing FOR and what he is arguing AGAINST, and IF he is arguing at all...honesetly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OMG too funny. He calls his own thread a trival time-waster LOL!

Only from the Rap!

I did nothing of the sort. Go back and re-read Kwickie's mindless point on the definition of incest.

Maybe you'll get it.

YOU certainly didn't.

No surprise there, at all.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:06 PM

Niki, just chalk this up to yet another of a long line of questions that Rappy can't or won't answer. He doesn't want to support Irons, but he also cannot, under any circumstances, agree with me or admit that I'm right. It's not something that is possible for him, because then his other delusions might start crumbling as well.

So he does what he always does: he runs away.

My bet is you won't see him again in this thread, and you absolutely won't see him clarify his position, because that would mean taking a stand and defending it, both of which he is unable to do with any intellectual honesty.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

isn't it illegal to marry if you are closely related to someone? why wouldn't those same provisions apply to gay marriages?

Methinks this is a silly argument

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
isn't it illegal to marry if you are closely related to someone? why wouldn't those same provisions apply to gay marriages?

Methinks this is a silly argument

That's what I've been getting at. Some states in the U.S. still allow first cousins to marry, but as far as I know no state allows brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son, father-son, mother-daughter, or sister-sister marriage.

Mr. Irons feels, and Rappy seems to agree, that same-sex marriage will somehow open a floodgate of fathers diddling sons, but somehow won't result in any mother-son marriages.

And I've been trying to tease out exactly where that thinking comes from. And Rappy, while agreeing with Mr. Irons, suddenly doesn't want to have the discussion at all, because he finds it a time waster. I've tried pointing out that I didn't bring it up, and I didn't bring incest into the discussion (that would be Mr. Irons, in excerpted portion which Rappy posted here); I'm just trying to clarify whether either of them know what the hell they're talking about - a question to which I've still received no satisfactory answer, but about which I have some suspicions.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 7, 2013 11:51 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
OMG too funny. He calls his own thread a trival time-waster LOL!

Only from the Rap!

I did nothing of the sort. Go back and re-read Kwickie's mindless point on the definition of incest.

Maybe you'll get it.

YOU certainly didn't.

No surprise there, at all.

No, I certainly didn't call MY own thread a trivial time waster.

Right. No surprise at all. At least we agree.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

Quote:
Does he think that mums marry their sons for tax reasons at the moment? No, of course he doesn't.

Because? Because there are laws against that kind of thing.

He doesn't think there might also be very similar laws against marriages between fathers and sons? How could there be?

How could there not be? Because, as Irons went on to explain: "It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us from inbreeding. But men don't breed, so incest wouldn't cover that. So if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him."

As I've pointed out, YOU brought it up. Hell, you even went to the trouble to underline it for added emphasis.

Then you called it "trivial"...

Quote:

Mr Irons is merely correctly stating that the laws against incestual relations are primarily due to the genetic problems which result from the offspring.

You really must have no life to speak of to waste anyone's time going on about this trivial sidebar.

The crux of his bizarre remarks hinges on incest-for-tax-breaks, but you don't want to talk about it.

Why'd you bring it up, then? Why do you keep claiming it's a valid point and then calling it trivial and a waste of time?

Clearly you DON'T "get it."

And you still won't answer the question. Why is that? Why can't you answer?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 6:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Huh. I guess you're right, Mike, since he came back to the thread but still ignored the questions. Weird. It seems so easy; HE put up the statement that Irons' remarks were bizarre, and it certainly seemed like that's what he was agreeing about. But ever since you came into the picture, he won't state clearly that Irons was wrong, he just goes in SnarkCircles.

The only logical explanation seems to be yours, that "He doesn't want to support Irons, but he also cannot, under any circumstances, agree with me or admit that I'm right. It's not something that is possible for him." I'm not at all sure it's impossible for him because it would call into question anything else, I'm guessing it's more along the lines of all those Republicans who can't agree with Obama, "under penalty of death", just "because". You've really got his goat, when it'll go to those lengths and he could easily clarify the situation and continue to disagree with you about everything else in the world. That's awfully sad, and mildly interesting. I hadn't noticed you had such a hold over him before.

As to incest itself, yes, the original reasons it was made illegal were about procreation, but as far as I know, nowhere in the laws against it does it say anything about progeny, just that such a "marriage" IS illegal, period. I think Irons is off his rocker if he actually BELIEVES it's only illegal for opposite-sex couplings. Also quite sad, and I'm pretty sure by now he's sorry he ever spoke up!

ETA: Ooops, I just realized: Apparently Rap DOES agree with Irons: "He was merely making the astute point that, legally, there very well could be more of these things to come down the road of unintended consequences."

But it's not an astute point: Incestuous marriage, where it's illegal, is illegal...that won't change because people can marry someone of the same sex, as far as I can see, that has no bearing on the law.

Quote:
Is it stupid, or is he merely making a valid point, which goes to show how convoluted our legal system is, and nothing more ? Just because you, me and Jeremy Irons may agree that it IS " stupid ", doesn't mean that there isn't some legal wiggle room for something like this to take place. That's all I see in his statements.

As to Irons' ignorance, what do you mean ? Ignorance of the future ? Of how humans will react to a new set of rules ? Help me out here.

I missed the question, so I'll answer it now. I was referring to Irons' ignorance of the fact that laws against incestuous marriage do not, as far as I know, refer to father/daughter or mother/son marriage, but marriage between A parent and A child, which sex one or the other is doesn't come into it. That's pretty patently ignorant.

Quote:
Mr Irons is merely correctly stating that the laws against incestual relations are primarily due to the genetic problems which result from the offspring.
....
I think Mr Irons makes a valid point. Whether or not we'll ever see such marriages as he describes, I think is doubtful in my life time. That it's unlikely to occur doesn't dismiss the legal loop hole from existing.

Doesn't MATTER if the laws were written about progeny, matters what the law says; no "wiggle room" can exist in such a situation.

So okay, I can only guess, but from his use of "astute" and "valid" and "correct", I gather Rap doesn't "get" that Irons' entire theory is bullshit, just as long as the laws which exist don't specify mother/son, father/daughter, and instead just specify that A parent can't marry any of their children, or that siblings can't marry, or whatever. I assume such laws do not specify the sex of the partners, so the whole thing is irrelevant. Got it.

A quick search brings up the following from Wikipedia:

Quote:
In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:

Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew
First cousins (in some states)

There appears to be no mention of which sex any of the blood relatives is or would be, merely that marriage between any of those blood relatives is illegal. End of debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 7:13 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's always cute when you spend so much time posting in a thread that YOU initiated, then when you feel boxed in by questions you can't or won't answer, you throw up your hands and accuse everybody else of having no life.

Rappy buy has a few key phrases that always indicate when he's backed into a corner.

There's this "no life" stupidity.

His "It's what you do. I get that. I do." tag, usually used when he's been asked for citations he knows he cannot provide.

His dishonest appeal for "honest discussion" which always means people have actually tried, and he cannot keep up.

His "I already posted that answer/citation/proof" which he invariably has not posted, and can never provide any link to an thread where he provided such info.

Those are his go-to dodges - but hardly the only ones. Feel free to add to the list, folks!

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's always cute when you spend so much time posting in a thread that YOU initiated, then when you feel boxed in by questions you can't or won't answer, you throw up your hands and accuse everybody else of having no life.

Rappy buy has a few key phrases that always indicate when he's backed into a corner.

There's this "no life" stupidity.

His "It's what you do. I get that. I do." tag, usually used when he's been asked for citations he knows he cannot provide.

His dishonest appeal for "honest discussion" which always means people have actually tried, and he cannot keep up.

His "I already posted that answer/citation/proof" which he invariably has not posted, and can never provide any link to an thread where he provided such info.

Those are his go-to dodges - but hardly the only ones. Feel free to add to the list, folks!

His "you're just arguing for the sake of argument" ploy, often in threads where other people are discussing things he hasn't even posted about.

His "you don't deserve an answer" and "you are all a bunch of children", along with yesterday's "I was only posting that to get a reaction from you" lie.

Just a few more of his greatest hits.

Oh, and his famous "I never said that" gambit.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 10:06 AM

Oh, and when you bring up the things he's said before and he claims never to have said them, and then you provide proof positive, his reaction turns to "Wow, you must really have a crush on me to go digging this stuff up."

Never an admission that he actually said the things he claimed he never said, never an apology for lying - no, it's always your fault for pointing out his bullshit, and it's really desperate of you to cite it chapter and verse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 10:08 AM

STORYMARK

He really is just an all around piece of shit.

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 12:18 PM

Just checking in to see if Rappy ever did address the question.

Of course he didn't.

Did anyone really think he ever would?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:33 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Mr Irons is merely correctly stating that the laws against incestual relations are primarily due to the genetic problems which result from the offspring.

You really must have no life to speak of to waste anyone's time going on about this trivial sidebar.

I think Mr Irons makes a valid point. Whether or not we'll ever see such marriages as he describes, I think is doubtful in my life time. That it's unlikely to occur doesn't dismiss the legal loop hole from existing.

A man who rapes or molests his son committed incest. A man who has consensual sex with his son, at any age, committed incest. Same is true for a mother and daughter, and for a two brothers and two sisters or a brother and a sister. This applies to half-brothers or half-sisters as well. It's also true for people not related by blood: a step father can commit incest with a step son.

The laws exist because there is a social taboo against incest. The taboo exists for many reasons, one of which is the genetic point you made, another is the potential for abuse, and another the psychological damage to the family unit itself that results. The taboo is by no means limited to genetics and incest that results in pregnancy.

It is all considered forms of sexual abuse under the law, even between siblings who may not have a very great age difference. Only Spain, the Netherlands, and France allow consensual incestuous adult relationships. It is very much illegal in the US. For this to be possible in the US, the laws restricting incest would have to be altered, and these laws would be different laws than those legislated by gay marriage.

This is why there are not many fathers marrying their daughters or mothers marrying their sons to cheat their taxes in the US, and this is why there would not be many same sex incestuous couples for tax reasons. I say not many instead of none because of places in the US that are more primitive, and because something being a law doesn't preclude people from doing it anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

As a side note, this wikipedia article mentions this Rick Perry argument, but it was a previous statement made in 2003.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Really bored, huh?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 1:38 PM

BYTEMITE

Pretty much. Wandered over here from another thread. Know it's old. Felt the need to clarify things for everyone. It can be a sticky issue. Many nuances.

No worries.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and when you bring up the things he's said before and he claims never to have said them, and then you provide proof positive, his reaction turns to "Wow, you must really have a crush on me to go digging this stuff up."

Or when he's proven 100% wrong, he'll say: "Really bored, huh?"

/predicted

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and when you bring up the things he's said before and he claims never to have said them, and then you provide proof positive, his reaction turns to "Wow, you must really have a crush on me to go digging this stuff up."

Or when he's proven 100% wrong, he'll say: "Really bored, huh?"

/predicted

Bingo. Or he'll prattle on, at length and for hours in a thread he started, about how this is all "trivial" and "you must have no life" to comment on it at all.

And now he'll no doubt come back to explain that this "is all moot", his favorite expression this week. I wonder how many times he's heard RushBaugh say that lately. It's like he's being spoon-fed his lines, straight from Rush's ass to Rappy's mouth.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:10 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Oh, and when you bring up the things he's said before and he claims never to have said them, and then you provide proof positive, his reaction turns to "Wow, you must really have a crush on me to go digging this stuff up."

Or when he's proven 100% wrong, he'll say: "Really bored, huh?"

/predicted

I wasn't proven wrong in the least.

I think Mr Irons makes a valid point. Whether or not we'll ever see such marriages as he describes, I think is doubtful in my life time. That it's unlikely to occur doesn't dismiss the legal loop hole from existing.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:36 AM

BYTEMITE

The legal loopholes don't exist. Incest is illegal. It would have to be rendered legal to allow legal loopholes.

If a father marries his son to get avoid taxes, he is breaking the law, regardless of whatever might be ruled state by state about gay marriage. Despite breaking the law, the father and son might still do this, but again that is not a problem of gay marriage but rather incest.

Mr. Irons is incorrect about the law, but you don't have to embrace Mr. Iron's views, nor are they necessarily representative of your own. There is no need to feel you have to defend yourself to me.

I choose to take your thread title at face value and leave it at that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:06 AM