Posted on 02/25/2014 7:44:37 PM PST by ReformationFan
Adam Baldwin, an actor best known for his performances in Full Metal Jacket, The Patriot and Firefly, outraged homosexual activists last week by questioning why marriage redefinition should not apply to single fathers who love their sons and want to enjoy all the tax benefits of marriage.
“What's wrong, now, with a father marrying his son for love & to avoid tax penalties?” Baldwin wrote on Twitter.
The actor has earned a spot on many liberal ‘enemies lists’ by using the micro-blogging site to share his outspokenly conservative opinions on pro-life, family and second amendment issues.
Baldwin received an avalanche of angry replies criticizing him for comparing homosexuality to incest. He replied: “Who said anything about ‘sex,’ H8rs?! This is a Liberty & ca$h deal! Love ≠ Sex.”
Summing up his detractors’ comments, he added, “Shorter H8rs: ‘Fathers & sons can't love each other absent sex acts!’ ~ #PolymorphousPerversity #SSM”
Baldwin says his comments were prompted by a statement from Matt Blevin, who is mounting a primary challenge against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
“If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage — because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repressions and things that come with it — so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise," Blevin told conservative radio host Janet Mefferd. “Where do you draw the line?”
Blevin and Baldwin are not the first to have asked the question. Last year, British actor Jeremy Irons drew fire for similar remarks about marriage redefinition and tax breaks, telling the Huffington Post, “Tax wise, it’s an interesting [question], because, you see, could a father not marry his son?”
When the interviewer accused Irons of comparing homosexuality with incest, Irons, like Baldwin, disagreed.
“It's not incest between men,” he said. “Incest is there to protect us from having inbreeding. 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.”
After Irons’ comments were widely circulated online and mocked by liberal commentators, the actor posted an open letter on his official website addressing the interview. He denied criticism that he is “anti-gay,” saying instead he simply wanted to have an honest discussion about the potential unintended consequences of a redefinition of marriage.
“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,” Irons wrote. “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).”
He admitted his example was “mischievous,” but said it was “nonetheless valid.”
His point has nothing to do with sex.
“....he simply wanted to have an honest discussion about the potential unintended consequences of a redefinition of marriage.”
You simply CANNOT have an honest discussion about anything on the topic of homosexuality. You fall in line or you’re a ‘homophobe.’
Throw it back, they’re heterophobes.
Why not just give everyone a tax break and quit bastardizing marriage?
I’m sure that much of the push towards legal same-sex “marriage” is about the financial benefits.
None of the judges imposing this on the American people has yet explained how homosexual relationships are equivalent to the biologically driven pair bonding of heterosexual couples that is meant to produce children.
Well I guess the fascists will make sure he never works again. They did that to James Woods.
Haven’t you heard? It’s only blacklisting when it happens to liberals. Conservatives have it comin’/sarc
Why the hell don’t we have a like button?
Awesome and co-opting for my own use....
my point is.. those that object to his point are objecting due to pedophilia and incest being ‘detestable’
well... I find their behavior detestable.
what’s the difference?
It is a LOT about the tax benefits. Too bad a conservative gay couple (I’m sure there are some out there) couldn’t come up with the idea that ALL people should get the marriage break. Of course then the courts would probably just rule in “fairness” to get rid of the tax break altogether.
There's no requirement that either party in a same-sex marriage needs to be homosexual, or that the marriage needs to be consummated. He's just scratching the surface when it comes to the estate planning and financial planning possibilities.
When money is involved, people can become very creative about interpreting laws in ways that have nothing to do with the intentions of the law's authors.
As recently as July of 2013, the US gov't was still paying out one pension form the Civil War!http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/03/one-civil-war-veterans-pension-remains-on-governments-payroll
I thought Alec Baldwin, too! After Alec's long piece the other day, I thought he is really going to be in hot water now with the homosexual groups saying this!
I heard from a lesbian that to get tax benefits, an older lesbian will adopt a younger lesbian who is her lover. So, it is a very valid point.
>> those that object to his point
“Those” being the homos that demand the sanctification of sodomy?
I agree. Unfortunately, we have a minority view on the matter.
>> It is a LOT about the tax benefits.
Which argues for the elimination of the income tax. It is a chief mechanism of social engineering.
Of course. That is why will make the same mistakes over and over again. As they say, everybody wants to be the man at the top.
Lately, I have been wondering if there isn't some fundamental, well established law--from common law, the Magna Carta, whatever--that could be used to bring the whole socialist house of cards (or a big part of it) tumbling down. Baldwin's idea is a baby step in that direction--using marriage as the wedge--but it doesn't suffice. I can't help but wonder if it's something so simple and straighforward that we cannot see it. But it would be great if someone could recall such a law and how it might be used to defeat our opponents. Yes, I know they operate extra-constitutionally all the time, but I am not talking about that. I'm talking about the silver bullet you forgot was in your pocket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.