Newsnight Debate

OMG!. I watched a painful few minutes of the live Newsnight debate on same sex marriages. There was a Catholic clergyman who was against it, an Anglican who supported it, a gay Catholic man who thought civil partnership was enough, a gay couple, two lesbians and a woman representing an organisation that wants to keep marriage as it is. So, three against-ish the unasked for legislation and five for. I guess that is what the BBC calls fair.

Though Paxman suggesting the woman for, was a bigot was unhelpful. Maybe, in ideal Paxman world you wouldn't be allowed to have a different opinion, based on hundreds of years of history and experience, but we are not there yet.

Paxman couldn't control things either, because all of those supporting same sex marriage continually shouted down the others, thus not allowing them to be heard. Not a strong argument I feel. One lesbian was incensed at the mention of 'gay' marriage, because she is obviously aware that the Left and its activists need to frame the debate and capture the way words are used., Again, poor argument.

The other, Scottish, comedian (of course) sneered at agreeing with a Tory and then shot off at a tangent to demand he not only support her view on marriage, but also stop the 'massive cuts to the NHS' etc. I'm sure she is well aware there haven't been any and that even an imbecile knows we are spent out, due to her idiot friends.

The gay men said they wanted to marry, they have children and just want equality. Well, those children came about through a biological process from which you are excluded. Who decided on that inequality then, God or Darwin? And who decided, for the children, that they should be given to a homosexual couple? What if their brain chemistry doesn't predict for homosexuality? What then of nature and nurture?

It is not 'progressive' of a society to allow homosexual relationships to be openly accepted, it is just a societal decision. Progressive, as is intended by the political activists, suggested correctness, something that just has to be. In that sense, of blind obedience to natural logic, homosexuality would only ever be wrong, but in a sentient being other decisions can be made.

The past decision to force homosexuals into the background was rational; they had to seek each other out where they could identify each other, natural except for the psychological harm done to them. By making it mainstream we have eased the burden on them, but haven't cured the three part society that now exists instead of the old two part. If I go into a ladies changing room, I am a pervert and liable to arrest.

They have no protection from lesbian viewing though. Why is that? Should we not now have three changing rooms?

Anyway, the debate was rubbish, Paxman partisan as ever and clearly showed homosexuals in a poor, self serving light, which isn't true either (but is of the politics of the gay movement). Thank goodness ice hockey was on at 11.