Aaron Tveit - “Fuck, fuck, fuck! What the hell just happened?”
Jeremy Irons gave an interview to Huffington Post Live yesterday and and the
64-year-old Oscar winner and one-time relevant actor had some interesting ideas about gay marriage. But did Irons take the chance to support the cause? Or to give your standard right-wing justifications as to why it should be illegal? No, no. He took a different approach altogether. For Irons, it’s not an issue of equality or family values, but instead one of potential father-son incest, to avoid taxes.
“Tax wise, it’ s an interesting [question],” Irons said. “Could a father not marry his son?”
When HuffPost Live host Josh Zepps correctly pointed out that there are laws against incest, Irons was undeterred, by reason or anything else. “It’s not incest between men,” he said, shaking his head. “Incest is there to protect us from having …uh…inbreeding. But men don’t breed. But men don’t breed so incest wouldn’t cover that. But if that was so, if I wanted to pass on my estate without estate duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him.”
Irons went on, saying he “didn’t have a strong feeling either way” and that he “[wishes] everybody who’s living with one other person the best of luck in the world, because it’s fantastic. Living with another animal, whether it be a husband or a dog, is great. It’s lovely to have someone to love. I don’t think sex matters at all. What it’s called doesn’t matter at all.” Unless, he probably forgot to add, it’s legal same sex marriage, in which case there will be rampant weddings between fathers and sons, for tax purposes.
Robert Downey Jr. in the Due Date Gag reel (X)
Behind the Scenes: Richard Armitage on the The Hobbit set