In an interview with BBC World News on Monday, Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons claimed most of his public declarations are taken out of context, and when it comes to gay marriage, he says “I wish I would have buttoned my lip.” Though he told the Huffington Post that same-sex marriage could lead to incestuous father/son relationships, he now thinks gay marriage is “just fine.”
He’s also not convinced smoking causes cancer, and doesn’t think “placing a hand on [a woman’s] behind” is sexual harassment.
From the interview:
“I make a comment in discussion, and it’s called a public pronouncement? It’s not a public pronouncement, it’s my own personal opinion!”
But giving your opinion to a Huffington Post writer is pretty much the definition of “public pronouncement.” Are we missing something?
Check out his wildly confusing explanation at BBC News. He’s almost indecisive enough to run for office!
Sorry Jeremy, but I watched the video and you weren’t taken out of context. You seemed to be channeling your inner Margaret Thatcher.
Now RuPaul’s remarks on NNNAwards about this guy make since! Glad I read this because my last impression of this guy was that we should see him as a British national treasure in an artistic sense. Now I can see that he is just a chauvinistic, ignorant bastard!
“I wish I would have buttoned my lip.” How many times do we see a celebrity make some asinine comment, then offer a non-apology and then finally express the sentiment that he or she wishes they had not spoken. Are they so limited in intelligence that they cannot think before they speak? Irons, who is a heavy smoking ass fondling straight man, obviously lacks wisdom and perhaps even intelligence.
Mr. E. Jones
He keeps ignoring the fact that he stated allowing gays to marry would “debase” straight marriage. That was the most offensive part of his comments.
What you have to realize is that being an actor doesn’t mean that you’re not thick. And he’s as thick as shit.
Look out for him on the children’s BBC show Playaway.
Basically, he’s thick. If he hadn’t lucked out and got the part in Brideshead, he’d be stacking shelves today.
I don’t suppose the link to Playaway will work, but if it does, you’ll see the airhead he really is:
How very dare we take his words as exactly what they were said, in the order and the literal and complete extent they were meant.
HOW DARE WE ACCURATELY LOOK AT A SITUATION AND TAKE AWAY THE CORRECT REASONING.
We’re fuckers, that’s what we are.
You wish that you would have buttoned your lip? Too late for that now, I’m afraid. It’s funny: so many celebrities don’t think before they speak, then they try to say that their comments were “taken out of context” afterwards…Michelle Shocked, anyone?
Come on now! just another mother fucker P.O.M.E: he is NOT European. AdamHomo
@Queerty: ‘Though he told the Huffington Post that same-sex marriage could lead to in_cestuous father/son relationships, he now thinks gay marriage is “just fine.”’
He never said it would to in_cestuous relationships. Again, he was referring specifically to potential legal loop-holes where a father could marry his son to avoid inheritance taxes or some similar guff. Nowhere did he say or even suggest that gay marriage would lead to in_cestuous relationships, despite the fact the moronic media machine has churned this misrepresentation out again and again.
@Mr. E. Jones: “He keeps ignoring the fact that he stated allowing gays to marry would “debase” straight marriage. That was the most offensive part of his comments.”
But his point there was linked to the above – not that gay people getting married would debase marriage but that if a loop-hole such as he described existed and masses of people exploited it by marrying their progeny for tax purposes, then that would make a mockery of the institution of marriage. Not by the gay people getting married, but the people who were only using gay marriage to avoid paying taxes – he was attacking the latter.
He made several comments in the original interview and after that made the explicit point that he is not against the idea of gay people being allowed to marry like everyone else and his view of two people wanting to live together in a loving and legally recognised relationship (ie. marriage) is one of unequivocal support.
His legal concerns regarding potential loop-holes seem idiotic to me for the simple reason that there are loop-holes in existing marriage laws that are exploited by many, but that isn’t a reason to outlaw marriage altogether.
I think his comments and concerns were ill-thought out and badly worded, but nowhere did he say anything homophobic.
What’s more depressing are all the people hysterically proclaiming his stupidity when they themselves have clearly not bothered to actually read or listen to what he said.
And worst of all, the incessant churnalism that the vast majority of news outlets now seem to trade in just entirely misrepresenting what he said in the most simplistic and cynical way purely, one imagines, to get more hits and thus greater ad revenue.
What’s one character unfairly assassinated when there’s moronic copy to file every 10 seconds and cheap money to be made???
Does no one here think that journalistic integrity and a more robust gay news system is what we need and that the alternative, with its lazy and often incorrect churnalism is actually quite dangerous or at the very least damaging to us and our cause?
@Lefty: Sorry for the use of “in_cestuous” above. Apparently, the word itself can be used in articles written by Queerty, but if you write it in the comments section it’s considered too racy for an adult gay news site and your comment gets “automatically flagged” and no one on this site ever goes through the comments that have been flagged so they remain invisible forever.
What delicate sensibilities we all have…
@Kieran: He voted against Thatcher and her policies.
This is what you get when you value people with looks over brains and character.
Comments are closed.