From the YouTube description by the UK Coalition for Marriage:
Jeremy Paxman hosts a debate with Tim Montgomerie, of the Conservative Home blog, Anne McIntosh MP and the President of a local Conservative association.
Anne McIntosh warns redefining marriage is "very divisive", "ill thought-out" and could have unintended consequences.
Others interviewed by the programme also tell of the damaging effects of the same-sex marriage plans:
There is a particularly good exchange at 12:40 between a man in favor of redefined marriage and a woman in favor of protecting it:
Pro-SSM man: "For me marriage is an incredibly important institution, it doesn't just join two people together it joins the two, couples, loved ones, friends and family together as well. And I think it's right that such an important institution, an incredibly conservative institution doesn't exclude anyone in society and, actually, by introducing equal marriage we broaden and popularize an institution and make it more central to society."
Pro-marriage woman: "But men and women are different. As a one-time divorce lawyer I know that part of the reason that marriage has succeeded as well as it has was for the protection of women and children. And if you actually change the ground rules there are going to be some very confused people out there in the church, in the schools, in society at large..."
Moderator interrupts: "What are they confused about?"
Pro-marriage woman: "About what the implications are..."
Moderator interrupts again: "The commitment of two people..."
Pro- marriage woman: "But we've got that in civil partnerships already. So why is the need to change at this pace?"
9 Comments
Woman: "But men and women are different."
True. Gay and Straight people are different also. If you're Straight, you marry another Straight person of the opposite sex. If you're Gay, you marry another Gay person of the same sex. What else is there to understand?
The woman in this interview seems worried about the "pace" of the marriage equality movement. WHY? For her, nothing is changing. For Straight people, nothing is being "redefined." And despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the prospect that Gay couples are also being allowed to make a legal commitment to one another, NO ONE has shown how it hurts Straight people.
The values that support the natural family will be officially recognized as a civil and human rights violation, Jeanette. That much is clear for all the people who have been sued and had their livelihood threatened because they declined to support and celebrate SS"M". In the UK, foster parents are no longer allowed to adopt if they hold moral qualms about homosexuality. Other UK citizens had their jobs threatened for speaking out in favor of natural marriage. It will no doubt get worse if this bill passes.
Don't believe the "it won't effect you" lie, people. Because it does and it will!
"it doesn't just join two people together it joins the two, couples, loved ones, friends and family together as well"
Marriage will not join these people together; only Biology is capable of doing that. Marriage is societal acknowledgement of the immutable and innate link that can only be created by this authentic science - by the laws of nature and natures God.
Marriage corruption supporters are demanding the marriage construct be severed from its link to an authentic science and attached to the faux science favored by the decadent elites; Psychology.
Thank you, Randy. As Dr. Morse has pointed out, marriage is the institution that unites children to their mother and father, while so-called "same-sex marriage" is the vehicle that severs this link.
Pro-marriage woman: "So why is the need to change at this pace?"
The powers that be: "To confuse the people."
Moderator: "That's right, whatever they say."
**True. Gay and Straight people are different also. If you're Straight, you marry another Straight person of the opposite sex. If you're Gay, you marry another Gay person of the same sex. What else is there to understand?**
What else is there to understand? Oh you poor poor dear. Here, I'll try to help you "understand": Name one specie in nature in which individuals bond with a creature of the same gender, reproduce and then raise the resultant young. Oh, you can't name any? Can you "understand" why? Here, I'll spell it out in simple terms that perhaps even YOU can understand: SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE UNNATURAL. Get it now? Creatures of the same gender aren't supposed to mate with each other. Why does this simple fundamental TRUTH elude some people? How does political correctness addlle the brains of so many? That is truly the question here.
In the United States businesses are being closed and people are losing their jobs as the ssm virus spreads.
One single UK TV interview is not going to present all the pro and con arguments about 'SSM'. There's no wailing and gnashing of teeth (as comment #1 tries to portray) regarding this topic. That is an illusion.
I do not believe there are sexually 'straight' and 'crooked' or 'glad' and 'sorry' people. That is a self-serving construct. The idea of a sexually 'straight' person would not even need a borrowed word from the dictionary, if the idea of a sexually 'crooked' person was not proposed. But such proposed idea is one of behavior, and not necessarily one of nature. Either way, society in general need not accept the construct of 'straight' vs. 'crooked' as a true description of the much more complex spectrum of sexual behavior, independent of sexual nature.
Another interpretation can be proposed: instead of the 'straight' and 'crooked' dichotomy, we could postulate that all people can alter their sexual behavior as a result of trauma, or simply a desire to be novel, and therefore that behavior is changeable (not immutable). Nevertheless, sometimes simple effeminate or tomboyish body features or body motion can be wrongly interpreted as indicating sexual 'crookedness', yet without correlation to sexual behavior; and most important: these people can be 'corralled' into thinking they must belong to the opposite category (construct). There is a wide variation of features or body-language, and much overlap between that of men, and that of women. (Note the analogy to hermaphrodites is independent of sexual behavior).
Sexual behavior is a private matter and therefore all scientific data is either obtained from personal experience, or is obtained through testimony. The proposal that there are only two natures: 'straight' (and therefore, by elimination, also 'crooked' or 'glad') is based on speculation or unfalsifiable testimony - not on scientific observations. Another, just as valid interpretation of the same data is that both men and women can all change to opposite sexual behavior as a result of trauma, or simply as a result of trying to act radical or novel (i.e., out of boredom).
All this has nothing to do with the public purpose of civil marriage, which is for the protection of children, not to regulate the sexual thrills of adults, nor to regulate friendship. Friendship regulates itself. Civil marriage is not instituted to regulate sexual behavior. It is instituted to regulate the care for the resulting children in an economical manner, regardless of the sexual behavior or even love between two or more adults.
It is time to go beyond the simplistic categorical sexual construct of 'straight' vs. 'crooked'.
Well, obviously the UK will have to demote everyone's marriage to a domestic partnership in order to give same-sex couples the title of marriage. It has been noted on this blog how the sexual nature of marriage would have to be removed or changed in order to accommodate same-sex couples, as they can't have what the marriage laws over there (and here) consider to be marital sex. If that changes, then something *is* changing for straight couples! And why? What's the societal purpose of turning everyone else's marriage into a domestic partnership?