hello and welcome to prop up where all things are considered i'm peter lavelle what

is a marriage and should same sex marriages be legally protected is it a universal human right to marry whomever you wish is this debate about equality and discrimination and what about the issues of religion social values and children . to cross-talk same sex marriages i'm joined by peter tatchell in london he is a human rights campaigner and director of the peter tatchell foundation in the hall we have godfrey bloom he is a member of the european parliament and a member of the u.k. independence party and in washington we cross to thomas peters he is the communications director for the national organization for marriage gentlemen cross-talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want to thomas if i go to you want in washington first how do you define a marriage well i define marriage like the vast majority of human history societies and cultures the marriages the unique bonding of a man and woman for the proper raising of children the next generation and it's

very close and saying ok peter in london give it a shot what's your definition of marriage go ahead i think marriage is a bond of love and commitment between any two people and they could be opposite sex or same sex and indeed in britain until nine hundred seventy one there was no ban on gay marriage so the ban in britain is a very recent invention godfrey go ahead. i very much agree with thomas in washington and i don't the i could improve upon that definition of marriage ok thomas what about your union civil unions isn't that enough for gay people gay people say it isn't but what do you think well i think it's very interesting i think it's very interesting that the cost of civil unions were considered for a time to be a compromise that both sides can agree on and it's really the crypt the pro gay marriage advocates that that have remove their common ground and so now we have all false choice between either redefining marriage or not legally recognizing other types of unions and so you know for one i'd be interested in looking at legal

protections for gay people absolutely but redefining marriage is not the best way to do it and sadly i would say i would i would offer that it's the other side that it's remove that compromise position ok peter in london how would you respond to that well to me love is very important and it is a social good and when people love each other that's something society should validate if you believe in marriage then you should welcome the fact that gay people want to get married because it's good for the individuals and the couple involved it's also good for society because people who are married who make that commitment tend to be happy and healthy and if they have children those children grow up in a stable environment so gay marriage is good for people who support family values godfrey family values you know that's completely wrong in my view this move is totally i'm a libertarian party as a libertarian and this is

a totally libertarian move it's also democratic and i'm afraid i couldn't speak for the united kingdom on this one. but i'm already under pressure from my constituents and members of my party who are saying just a minute this is gone too far we believe that it should be civil partnerships we believe that homosexual couples should be protected and they should be enter into whatever situation they feel is appropriate but marriage is not for them marriage is for between a man and a woman and it has been so since the beginning of time ok peter since the beginning of time not quite right because that's not quite right because of course throughout history there's been many different definitions of varieties of marriage even today in many countries polygamous marriages are lawful where a man can take several wives in the past we had child brides where the church

authorized older men to marry young girls aged twelve thirteen and fourteen for many years divorce was banned but that's been the board eyes so marriage has changed over the generations and centuries and i think it's right and proper that it should do so again because in a democratic society one of the fundamental principles is that everyone should be equal before the law and allowing gay people this isn't democratic is a matter of a course of democratic control continue go ahead god forbid this is going to britain support it godfrey go ahead jeffrey knowing. the british government the british government has absolutely no democratic mandate for this this was not in any of the manifestoes at all and of course what actually happens is now that the united kingdom doesn't govern itself. the final court of appeal is the european court of human rights in strasbourg so they cannot they can move with any

protection that this government offices to people who do not want to be priests and the rabbis who do not want to marry same sex couples can be taken to the european court of human rights and it will be overturned so this is not libertarian this is not democratic this is old a graphic i'm totalitarian peter you want to reply to that because you're shaking your head with the respect with respect you're wrong because all the major opinion polls have taken place in britain show between sixty one and seventy two percent of the public supports equal marriage that is the right of gay people to get married even people of faith in britain fifty eight percent support gay marriage plus the government did say before i don't those at all should never be trying to save just by going to. now no i mean go ahead jump in washington thomas go ahead go ahead if that were true peter if that were true peter then then then cameron should be

urging a public vote on marriage as the people of france a million people in france and paris turned out a couple weeks ago demanding precisely that from holland a chance to vote on marriage and so whenever gay marriage advocates say all the people support it the last thing they ever want to do is actually let the people decide in america that's what organization is founded upon and thirty five thirty times out of thirty four people have voted to protect marriage the vast majority of americans have voted to protect marriage even as public polling will claim that majority of people support gay marriage what's actually happening is that people are scared to say what their personal beliefs are on marriage and given the privacy of the voting booth when given the tools of democracy they always and consistently have voted to protect marriage in the vast majority of cases and so i really think that the opinion polls don't matter the only poll that matters is a free and fair vote of the people peter would you like to apply to that would you say would you would you would you prepared to put up a vote where the black people should have equal rights whether muslims or jews should have equal rights of course not. this is a human rights principle the united nations you know if you change the subject is change it's not surprising that your civilian poll everyone to marry found here you

many people are widower than i do you exceptions to any yes or anybody else united nations activation enshrined the principle that everyone should have a right to marry and if gay people marry it does not diminish heterosexual marriages one iota heterosexual marriages remain intact they continue you're just adding to marry. her and question things godfrey jump in go ahead no i don't recall you going home. is going to like us to go. there was there was a couple this is happening all the time that comes across my desk but only last year a christian couple who have a bed and breakfast house do not believe that they should give bed and breakfast accommodation to married couples or homosexual couples and that was a deeply held christian belief they were held in contempt of the qualities that come of fine three thousand pounds there's nothing liberal about this there's nothing the libertarian about this we are now in

a situation in the united kingdom where you cannot say who or who not you will have in your house this is appalling this is going to fall on another christian said before before christmas he thought that this gay marriage was a step too far and he lost his job this is a disgrace let's all wake up to the reality ok thomas he wanted to say something earlier responding to peter in london go ahead what i want to say to you that's right i want to say two things first i want to go back to peter's historical arguments against marriage saying that marriage has changed over time you hear this a lot from gay marriage advocates and i think actually it proves our point it's true that over time different societies and cultures have experimented with marriage experimented with like how early marriage can be again experiment with how many people can be in a marriage and all the experiments have failed except for the. bonding of one man and one woman and i think that history will show us that gay marriage was also an experiment that was alternately found wanting and here's why if you look at it if

gay marriage is such a wonderful idea why does it always have to hide behind power and privilege to push its way gay marriage is not being demanded by a huge upswing of the populace the populace as of france of the u.k. of america are all demanding to protect traditional marriage gay marriage is purely receiving its victories for these very high corridors of power through like the european high court etc etc and i mean that's not a democratic process and if gay marriage needs to be so close to power to succeed that's not all to the idea the cultures will accept ok fair time peter in london go ahead. the idea that gay people are some incredibly powerful lobby is absurd we in britain and the united states and many other countries have suffered decades and centuries of persecution and discrimination we are marginalized often victimized minority thankfully some societies including fall flung societies like south africa and argentina now recognize that gay discrimination is morally and ethically wrong

that in a democracy every one should be cool to go back to godfrey's point the important thing is fundamentally that people should have a right to choose to get married if they wish that's not totalitarian doesn't take away anybody else's rights it actually adds to and strengthens marriage and in this argument must constantly remind ourselves this issue is about love to men or to woman who love each other and their love is just as real and just as valid as that between heterosexual men and women and we should be thankful for it we should accept it we should you got was a good partnership given equality in the godfrey you get a lot squared before the break oh shit i think it's just another good well let me go to hall first before we go to the break go ahead godfrey go ahead i haven't had my question answered by peter tatchell does he believe that christian loving married couple should be able to decide who comes into the household no they were

fined three thousand pounds when just paid to talk out of the question please yes i don't know. peter go ahead i'll answer the question you raised was the fact of the christian man who was he wasn't didn't lose his job he was suspended and then demoted over so he opposed same sex marriage are supported defending that christians right to hold his point of view i opposed his suspension with regard to the bed and breakfast cup which is really off topic but anyway they were offering a public service so it is and if you're a public service in britain they were offering a public sorry gentlemen a bad day here we go to a short break and go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on gay marriage state.

we speak your language. news programs and documentaries in spanish what matters to you. was a little tentative angle on this story. here. altie spanish find out more visit.

he. i.

welcome back to all things considered i'm. talking about same sex marriages. ok about to go back to thomas and washington what kind of social good or positive value does gave a marriage have for society if at all in your opinion what. for gay marriage well i don't see any because they don't believe that gay marriage exists and here's why it let's go back to love the proponent of gay marriage saying love

is love is love but the fact is that there is a difference between the love of two men and love the man woman the difference being that the love of a man and a woman in most cases and with the child and the child needs a mother to father a child for its entire biological life will need to be raised and will be raised best by its mother and father and so you know that's why it's absurd to claim there's something ethically wrong with seeing the love between a man or woman as being unique that's what that that's what the core of marriage is it's not it's not a valuation of one love versus the other it's saying that different loves result in different things and that's why the vast majority of people will experience love it heterosexually and will have a child and that child will need a mother and father and all the social science shows that children do best when they're raised by their biological mother and father and so marriage just isn't about the emotional needs of adults it's about what the actual practical emotional psychological social needs of children and that's why well you can experiment with marriage for a few years generationally only

a healthy society that understands this core viewing of like what love actually means is a successful society ok peter that was a very succinct answer going to have that's how i view it tom we have we are told we have a live in countries in the world that have legalized same sex marriage plus many of the provinces and states there has been no collapse of civilization life continues heterosexual people are not diminished or damaged or harmed in any way you know those loving relationships. just as solid as heterosexual ones all the issue of children. here you know you just you can lay out a bunch of guys but most know it's way too soon to know there's a there's a there's one hundred eighty six civil you're still dreaming fostered by a mother and a father. well you yourself said we didn't have. cattle don't have insurance it was unthinkable before then. most of us

a very interesting his daughter had it will tell us you are so let me finish let me finish go ahead peter go ahead and let me finish yes people won't be most gay couples can you stop interrupting please don't be so rude. most gay couples do not have children so the argument about children doesn't apply moreover many heterosexual couples either choose not to have children or are infertile and we do not deny them the right to get married we say that their marriages even if their infertile have no prospect of having children are just as valid as any other marriage so applying those principles really honestly you shouldn't object to gay people getting married godfrey and whole jump in. well i don't think the logistics of the legal to just fix have been thought through where does this end i've already mentioned that i wasn't off message i do believe in a libertarian society it's important who you can or who you want to have in your house or not it shouldn't be the role of the state if same sex if you have same sex

marriage what about into family marriage does that mean the incest taboo is now broken where does this actually end and i still don't understand it i don't think peter tatchell is made his case for what he feels that he's not getting out of us recognize civil partnership that he would get out of marriage marriage is for men and women and has been since time immemorial it isn't your institution i think you're doing harm to the liberalization for homosexuals it was illegal not that i would go historically and you're quite right homosexuals were persecuted which is quite wrong but now your i believe that you are taking an assault on what is the preserve of men and women and you are doing yourself no good because it will spring back and all the liberal work as we've done in the last thirty years will retrace this is very dangerous for you peter which i reply to that can i reply to yes your

leg got godfrey. can i ask you to think of an analogy how would you feel if the government said to the black jewish or muslim communities you are banned from marriage but we will give you civil partnerships instead i don't see most compassionate honest decent people would accept that they would say that was unacceptable discrimination and that is why the national association for the advancement of colored people united states the main historic black civil rights movement has said that for them the battle for gay civil rights is a knowledge of two the black battle for black civil rights they say well you will find the best you can simulate the situation say that he was released i could tell . no i think i thought you liked the whole peter you made your point you made your point godfrey go ahead you made you made your point godfrey go ahead i can tell you peter peter tatchell to find that the most hostile group of people probably on the planet to homosexual marriage all the blacks and the baathists and the

presbyterians so i think you've made a very bad case and it's not a good analogy and toll the point is this what i'm i'm getting questions from teaches. who all roman catholics for example who are saying i am now going to have to have seen the documents from the home office in the education department saying i'm going to have to teach people my children in the future the same sex marriage is just as valid as proper marriage and i'm afraid that they're deeply upset i think peter tatchell being actually very selfish ok thomas go ahead in washington go ahead. i want i just i just i just i just want to walk down this this comparison of peter of bans on interracial marriage and bans on gay marriage look the bans on an interracial marriage were meant to keep the races separate marriage is about bringing men and women together and so any comparison of like the gay marriage lobby of grafting itself into the civil rights movement certainly no america is absurd on its face and if you looked at it like most gay marriage advocates in

america try to make this claim time and time again it simply doesn't work because the history of african-american people in america and around the well certainly america is in no way comparable the social experience of gays and again you know peter try to say that the idea that the gay marriage law is a powerful is absurd is absurd will come out i live in washington d.c. the three largest gay marriage organizations are funded ten times my little organization the present united states supports gay marriage it's become the platform of the democratic party the idea that gays they gave advocates lack social power is absolutely absurd anyone who says if you still make that claim i think people will see it just rings hollow peter lehner reply go ahead well i can say as someone who's campaigned for equal marriage rights for everyone for forty years i can tell you until very recently it was a long lonely battle and i was personally vilified movement an organization was constantly attacked ridiculed and ignored we had no a no power for most of the last forty years but signed fully

a majority of people in britain the united states and i'm sure the moment of america and having a quality come and go ahead. well first i don't i don't believe that the principle of equality means you have to treat different things the same now second of all if you're talking about this history of persecution come over to america and spend a day fighting as a pro-marriage advocate you know we have death threats we have all the things that you experience that doesn't make our cause right or your cause right and so i think that the best thing is actually to look at what marriage is that's the fundamental question and it's all part of the social and cultural changes marriage is unique because it serves the interests of children uniquely well and that's why it's worth protecting godfrey going and what about on marriage i don't god to judge people who are infertile don't want to have children god forbid i had for sexual couples who are in search of i think what yeah but even but even if that's that's only if you say responded that to their go to god already and how it's good it will couple and it's good i don't agree with them to the and give that child a million of us really is is that the free the freedom of giving the freedom.

laws government sponsorship for homosexual couples to marry is actually going to detract on the u.k. a little awkward age old but you know done about the american law which will go to the european court of human rights and you will find that priests. rabbis will be in breach of the law if they refuse to marry same sex couples and i say again we have seen things that have gone far to fall i was a big supporter of the liberalization of the laws when it came to homosexuality years and years ago and peter tatchell i'm first to admit was done the first i was told in bringing away this discrimination which was quite wrong but it's now the pendulum has swung to fall and you'll bring in prejudices back against your own state believe me a big mistake. peter go ahead it's not the idea that i was going to remember there is is that the majority of people in britain and the united states support marriage

equality and support for the civil and human rights of gay people is increasing thomas and quite rightly peter it's not it well first well first of all you know we've had sixty million american people america vote for on marriage in the vast majority of always wanted to protect marriage i want to try to rephrase the word god figure saying to maybe peter understand it this way when people like we all leave gay people say that they want marriage to be a stronger institution which is why they want to join it well there's a lawful lot of civil society churches communities government that all is built to support marriage because marriage is an easy it's not easy to get men and women to commit to raising the children they make with their bodies but that's what civil society has been doing in a healthy society does that it is difficult and gay marriage makes it difficult for all of civil society to enshrine that value that children deserve a mom and a dad and that men and women should stick around and love and raise the children they make with their bodies and the distraction of gay marriage is made impossible

for things like the catholic church for things like political civil government to to to give that message and so when you say oh well gay marriage will hurt anyone it already has because now when i try to say a child deserves both a mom and dad you jump and say that's against equality and so you can actually see already and then that the more that gay marriage were to be accepted and put in trying to law the more difficult it would become for the rest of us to communicate this life saving propagating message for the next generation ok peter i'm going to give the last word of the problem go ahead ahead go. most gay people or gay couples who want to get married do not have children and will not have children so the argument about children is irrelevant as we have seen heterosexual couples who are infertile who don't want to have children they are allowed to get married so let's leave that one to one side but i wanted to finish with this basic fundamentals relevant then don't. we. why you don't tom you have been so rude throughout this entire i've never interrupted you once

you've been talk to me about twenty times just please hold your tongue it is very important it is very very important that in a democratic society we are all equal before the law there should be no discrimination against anyone. run out of time fascinating discussion many thanks today to my guests in london hall and in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here i see you next time and remember. these.

but. the way the system. there are twelve cities in the united states in which half of the people with hiv

aids lives with. over sixty two percent. i diagnosed with aids this is a problem that frankly is substantially preventable it was like the big elephant in the room and nobody wanted to talk about it there were really good public health campaigns that people were really focused on this problem you certainly should be able to have a lot less h.i.v. a lot less human suffering. that's the.

with a. little. bit of luck and good. luck. and a. lot of a little. download the official application to yourself choose your language stream quality and enjoy your favorite. if you're away from your television early it just doesn't matter how would your mobile device you can watch ati anytime anywhere.

under. oath.