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.”
Why can’t brothers marry? Or sisters. No incest here. Children aren’t possible from any possible sexual practice. Fathers/sons. Mothers/daughters. Why not? Why would the gay community be upset with this? Why have incest laws anyway? Don’t we have abortions and pills? Remember not to look back as you leave the city. You might be turned to salt.
CC
That seems to be a big mistake when discussing things with liberals.
They don't discuss, they accuse, attack, belittle, and denounce.
I think that was funny, because if I was asked, I’d explain that I would never compare homosexuality to incest, because incest is having sex with a close relative, and homosexuals don’t actually have sex, because they don’t have the right parts for that.
I would also point out that “buggery” laws, also known as sodomy laws, existed not really to stop adult homosexuals, but to keep gay men from having sex with young boys, and that now in some states pedophiles are getting off because sodomy laws were thrown out by the supreme court.
Is this how the name Dickinson came about?
“Then I add “you know, when I bang a chick, she’s gonna get pregnant, how about you?”
I can’t wait for someone to do this, and the government comes to make them “prove” they are really married, except the laws about proving marriage involve sexual intercourse, which of course no gay or lesbian couple can engage in.
bttt
Just make the argument that there should be a test for genetic proclivities to homosexuality and announce that is satisfactory reason to abort.
The left has been redefining words for some time now. Remember, “the People” spoken of in Amendments 1, 4, 9, 10 are different from “the People” spoken of in Amendment 2.
“wow. What a real class act.”
Aw, you have to do better than that you fag to get me down tonight. Received my royalty checks from Warner and one of my movies is currently in the top 15 right now. Class act, eh? ;)
My argument is that, if government has a compelling interest in encouraging people to live together, then any two people who choose to live in the same house should get the same tax breaks.
We know that the reason for government to recognize marriage was always that there could be children and those children needed to have two parents so the state didn’t have to care for them.
But since the courts have said that idea is stupid, then the only other reason for the state to give tax breaks must be because the government wants to encourage people to share living expenses. It can’t be for love, since government has no business giving special treatment to people just because they are in love, and that would violate the 14th amendment because a person can’t control being in love, nor can people just marry anybody they are in love with, that other person has to love them or at least tolerate them.
And frankly, I bet a brother and a sister who decide to share a house after the sister becomes a single mother would probably be a better environment for that child than a homosexual couple.
Anyway, in a couple of years polygamy should be legal, and that should really open the floodgates of the tax code. Because I could marry some woman who had married my son, and that way could pass all my inheritance on without having to marry my own child directly.
The only thing worse than the negro preservation Mafia in public life is now the gay mob.
Given how inherently bitchy they are....is anyone surprised
Its like you take the mercurial hormonesitis strangers to logical behavior worst aspect of females mixed with most debauched randy whoreish man (like me as a hetero)
And you have a 21st century queer male in western culture
Promiscuous....vile...and irrational and temperamental and catty
Man....could it be worse
I think this is where neutering and eunuchs got traction.in antiquity...just to shut them up
The irony in that analogy..lol
With polygamy being on the progressives agenda, why couldn’t a whole extended family get married and totally eliminate probate? Families could then build wealth over the generations like they did in the old days.
The hero of canton. The man they called jayne!
“Private Pyle” was played by Vincent D’Onofrio. Baldwin played “Animal Mother” in the later battle scenes. And damn, he played it well!
What I want to know is, why can’t I marry my dog?
“...and he would jack up Rush Limbaugh in his dressing van.” This didn’t “come out” right. Not the best use of words, or was this intentional?
I’ve always loved Adam Baldwin and found him uniquely compelling and attractive from the first time I saw him, in My Bodyguard, and in everything ever since — didn’t find out he was a conservative until fairly recently. I believe that somehow, his qualities of Rightness came through all along. God bless him and his!!! Atta boy, Adam!!! And I LOVED Firefly.
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.