Academy Award winning actor Jeremy Irons may not have much of a strong opinion regarding same-sex marriage, he does feel it poses some rather odd questions regarding whether or not it would open the door for interfamilial relationships.
He told HuffPost Life host Josh Zepps “Could a father not marry his son? It’s not incest between men” because “incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.” He also apparently wondered if this would allow fathers to pass on their estates to their sons without taxation.
He went on to assert that “It seems to me that now they’re fighting for the name. I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that.” Still, he apparently doesn’t have all that much of a strong feeling about the issue one way or the other and he “[wishes] everybody who’s living with one other person the best of luck in the world, because it’s fantastic.”
He also said “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.”
Irons is rather foolish on this part. While he may assert that he has no strong feelings regarding the issue, the reality is he appears to have no brain on the issue either. Excluding the arguments about genetics, interfamilial sexual relationships are fraught with problems regarding power dynamics. These interfamily power dynamics have the problem of rendering consent impossible to give fully, and thus making it impossible for the law to allow interfamilial sexual relationships to occur legally.
The same is true for issues like child sexual relationships, and bestiality. The issue is not so much about sex, but power and consent. A child cannot understand consent, and neither can an animal.
Irons really should think about these issues rather that spouting off at the mouth.