Skip to comments.Jeremy Irons rips Michael Bloomberg, Nanny State
Posted on 04/04/2013 6:22:27 PM PDT by Beave Meister
Granted, the actor did get into some trouble recently when he wondered aloud if gay marriage would debase marital law, allowing men to marry their sons to avoid estate taxes.
And less recently he said, If a man puts his hand on a womans bottom, any woman worth her salt can deal with it. Its communication. (Perhaps thats how it works for Jeremy Irons. I remain skeptical.)
Whatever the case, his position on paternalistic do-gooders in this HuffPo Live interview, is right on.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
This guy walked off the Hollywood plantation TWICE! Eva Longoria Twitter attack pending...
Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!
here he is talking about a father marrying a son
btw, there are a lot of libs with lots of money that might be looking into whether they can marry their sons to get rid of death duties now that someone came up with the idea.
HAHA that should drive the liberals crazy.
incest in California requires sex
SO, can a father and son marry under the same sex law in California???
Jeremy: It's not incest between men. Incest is there to protect us against inbreeding, but men don't breed, so incest wouldn't cover that. Now if that was 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.
Josh: No, that sounds like a total red herring. I'm sure that incest law would still cover same-sex marriages.
Jeremy: Really, why?
Josh: Because I don't think that incest law is only justified on the basis of the consequences of procreation. I think there's also a moral approbation that's associated with incest.
And not so long ago, there was also a moral approbation that was associated with homosexuality...
There is someone out there in the Federal Government going OH SH&^ Jeremy Irons, if the SCOTUS lets states decide they they can have same sex marriage we might just lose 100s of millions of dollars in estate taxes....
But can a Mother marry a son right now and have no sex which means no incest and evade Estate taxes?
I dont know.
I liked the interviewer’s response ... he actually had moral issues with a father marrying a son. Morals? what the heck does morals have to do with anything anymore with this bunch?
I have been saying for a while we need the most wacked out people we can find ... even nambla ... to push the envelope and protest and ask these liberals why they can’t do what they want as well? why can’t a father marry his son in the National Cathedral? who are these people to judge ... etc etc :-)
I thought he was good in the remake of Lolita. Although it would be hard to top Stanley Kubrick.
Very interesting. The key is that people are linking sex with marriage through assumption only. Thus a sex less marriage between parent and offspring would not be incest, since the sex part is the definition of incest. With careful planning estates could be passed down from generation to generation without a dime of taxes being paid. The government would never collect a dime from anyone who planned ahead.
Marriage would devolve from a loving union of man and women into a tax shelter scheme. When polygamy is declared constitutionally protected in the near future, marriage will become another name for a will. What we know as true marriage will become something with a different name. A person in the future will marry everyone mentioned in their will, and be (fill in the blank) with the one they love.
Nanny State PING!
Thanks for the ping!