JEREMY IRONS RESPONDS [update]

I started a "Jeremy Irons Apology Countdown" the other day, after Irons said something stupid and offensive in an interview with the Huffington Post when asked what he thought about gay marriage:

"It seems to me that now they're fighting for the name, and I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that."

But wait—there's more!

"I mean tax-wise is an interesting one because, you see, could a father not marry his son?" 

Irons has now responded—not apologized, but responded—and in what can only be described as an offensive and groveling manner. Which is quite a trick.

The full response, from JeremyIrons.net:

This response is a letter, written by Jeremy Irons, which has appeared in the British press, in response to the live chat with the Huffington Post:

I am deeply concerned that from my on line discussion with the Huffington Post, it has been understood that I hold a position that is anti gay. This is as far from the truth of me as to say that I believe the earth is flat.

I was taking part in a short discussion around the practical meaning of Marriage, and how that institution might be altered by it becoming available to same-sex partners. Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non reproductive relationships). Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.

I am clearly aware that many gay relationships are more long term, responsible and even healthier in their role of raising children, than their hetero equivalents, and that love often creates the desire to mark itself in a formal way, as Marriage would do. Clearly society should find a way of doing this.

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.

I believe that is what it could be, but it depends on all of us behaving, even behind our aliases, in a humane, intelligent and open way

I'm sorry to say this, it being name-calling and all, but it's hard to not take from this that Jeremy Irons is dumber that a box of wet socks.

 I am deeply concerned that from my on line discussion with the Huffington Post, it has been understood that I hold a position that is anti gay. This is as far from the truth of me as to say that I believe the earth is flat.

Good! We are heartened by this opening!

Perhaps rather too flippantly I flew the kite of an example of the legal quagmire that might occur if same sex marriage entered the statute books, by raising the possibility of future marriage between same sex family members for tax reasons, (incest being illegal primarily in order to prevent inbreeding, and therefore an irrelevance in non reproductive relationships). Clearly this was a mischievous argument, but nonetheless valid.

Oy. It is nothing like "valid" to make that wholly offensive and logically stupid argument. Just for starters, as has been pointed out by me and many others, if your argument made any sense at all we should already be worried about daughters marrying fathers and sons marrying mothers for tax evasion purposes, since herterosexual marriage is in fact already and has been forever legal. (And the incest remark is just completely wrongheaded, and legally wrong, as I pointed out, with sources, for those that need them, in the other post.) That's called "doubling down" in the offensive dumbass business, and it actually make Irons' prior comments worse.

I am clearly aware that many gay relationships are more long term, responsible and even healthier in their role of raising children, than their hetero equivalents, and that love often creates the desire to mark itself in a formal way, as Marriage would do. Clearly society should find a way of doing this.

That's just embarrassing. "Gays are awesome! They're even better that straights! Please don't hurt me!" Can you grovel a little grovelier, Jeremy? (I need to add that that paragraph is at least kind in its intentions. And, well, good on him for saying it.)

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.

Did Jeremy Irons actually just say he hoped "the internet was a forum where ideas could be freely discussed without descending into name-calling?" Is he the dumbest person on Earth? I ask that sincerely.

I believe that is what it could be, but it depends on all of us behaving, even behind our aliases, in a humane, intelligent and open way.

Hey, my name is Thom Little! That's not an alias! That's my name! And you can go snort drain cleaner from the rim of an active volcano, you condescending, obtuse, and offensive little twit.

We look forward to an actual apology from Jeremy Irons. The countdown clock is still running.

(Note: Just noticed that Irons' post is dated April 5. How has nobody seen it until now? Whatever.)

Update: He responds once again. He's all over the place. "Gay marriage is not something I have any feelings about at all. I'm quite interested in what it does to marriage." What a wanker. And he says he doesn't know if he's a Libertarian because he doesn't what "Libertarian" means. He called himself a "Libertarian" in the original interview.

Again, Irons appears to be someone who thinks of himself as a hip, brave, out-of-the-box thinker—who's just not that bright. Dangerous and annoying combination.

[image]