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.”
Seriously, if you actually get a tax break, why wouldn’t two hetero buddies marry, then declare they’re straight and marrying to screw the system? When they find their female wives, divorce each other.
The Right should stop playing this Progressive game - Get governments out of Marriage and return it to churches only.
Either that or he’ll be audited.
Coolest thread of the day, RF.
I had no idea about that particular Baldwin. Jeremy Irons either. Neither one said anything hateful, just asked logical questions.
Freegards
If 2 men get married they can not reproduce with each other.
If 2 women get married they can not reproduce with each other.
Both couples must involve a member of the opposite sex or they will have no children.
Also, there are a whole lot of sexless marriages and marriages of convenience between heterosexual couples.
I’m surprised the Left still pretends to care about incest.
Nice move in political JuJutsu. Taking their strength and using it against them.
Aside from that, we should start asking the questions ... How do we know you’re Gay. Do you have to be Gay to marry the same sex? Do you have to have sex with them? So in the end this same sex marriage thing isn’t about gay. It’s about economic advantage and contributing to the destruction of the family.
More JuJutsu, Abortions for sex selection? Abortion for sexual preference selection? How about aborting babies that look like they’ll be sub performers according to their DNA?
Global warming? ... Lets go out to some 3rd world countries and commit genocide. The more people we kill the more is left for us and it will mitigate global warming.
Hey, instead of giving amnesty to millions of Mexican Illegal Aliens, lets just take the Baja peninsula from them and start another state for them there.
No reltaion to the other Baldwins.
Adam was also in the X Files and Chuck.
“Shiny. Let’s be bad guys....”
In PC Logic, to oppose Adam Baldwin’s idea, would be a clear case of homophobia.
Thanks, I think I just assumed since there was so many there had to be one more.
Jane was the best part of Firefly, for me. Is he being castigated by the firefly fanatic crowd?
FReegards
I’ve been asking that exact question for a while now, on this forum.
I’m confused
if we’re not allowed to detest homos for being homos... why is it ok to detest people that are into pedophilia and/or incest for marital purposes or seeking services at various businesses?
I personally know him. I was a set manager on Chuck for a certain season and he would jack up Rush Limbaugh in his dressing van.
Point flying over numerous heads...
bookmark
“Marriage” has always been between man and woman.
What homosexuals want is to change the meaning of the word. They then claim that, under this modified meaning, they are being excluded.
If the meaning of words must be changed it is proof of a lie.
If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits. Why stop at “marriage”, why not include other words? They’re all up for grabs when words have no fixed meaning. If the meaning of words can be altered at will then there are no limits, lies become truth and truth becomes a lie.
Altering the meaning of words is how the left re-frames an issue to advance their agenda. Don’t let them get away with it.
Anyone who outrages the fag fascists are hero’s in my book. What we need are thousands of Phil Robertson’s standing up not just on this issue but against all the leftist hedonist drivel. Instead we are stuck with the submissive party. I’m nearly done with it. I want to know my money is going to push back hard against everything leftist progressive and deviant. Instead we get a legion of whimps ala John McCain and Mitt Ramsbottom Romney.
Thanks ReformationFan. Hey, but don’t worry, elections don’t have consequences, so it’s okay to just stay home, don’t vote, and hold your breath until your state turns blue.
Same here!
“If 2 men get married they can not reproduce with each other.
If 2 women get married they can not reproduce with each other.”
Now, I’ve had close to fistfights with libs about this and they keep telling us it’s normal and natural” to be homosexual. Now all i ask them is “if it’s so normal, how come both of you cannot normally and naturally conceive a child?”
Then I add “you know, when I bang a chick, she’s gonna get pregnant, how about you?”
I see no reason why thoroughly heterosexual, single dudes shouldn’t exploit the benefits assigned to ‘married’ homosexuals.
Get the damn govt out of marriage.
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.