Question Time Must Watch

Peter Hitchens and Will Self are, I believe, crossing swords over the issue of 'same-sex marriage' right now.

Can't watch it at the mo' but I'd be interested to hear how it turns out.

Click here to watch Question Time.


Comments

Amfortas said…
Peter Hitchens was incredily restrained and reasoned in his arguments. He didn't say why he opposed gay marriage - he recognises, sadly, that most people aren't listening and do not even begin to comprehend Christian teaching - but chose to argue on the grounds of conservative opinion being increasingly sidelined and mocked. Will Self merely played to the gallery. His stance is reminiscent of demagogues throughout the ages who play to the mob and fan the flames of prejudice. Forgive me for using such a term but I've always thought that Will Self is a w****r and I see no reason to change my opinion.
Lazarus said…
I agree with Amfortas. I don't think Peter Hitchens is always the most effective defender of Christian beliefs (too much Protestant emphasis on faith, not enough on reason) but listening to Self's sneering was utterly nauseating.
BJC said…
Just watched it. Typical BBC 'debate' on the issue with 4 vs 1 in favour on the panel and 75% of the time devoted to the pro-gay marriage point of view. On top of that it was pretty obvious Dimbleby was pro-gay marriage.

Peter Hitchens gets it right at the end. Its all about the liberals imposing their own mad little civilisation on the rest of us. For once Will Self looked worried as Hitchens calmly and forcefully told him he was a liberal bigot. Its unusual because Will Self is always so cocky and arrogant.
Nicolas Bellord said…
There were two excellent contributions from the audience - a man who said gay marriage was ontologically impossible which got W.Self going. Also a lady from an ethnic minority.

But it was very depressing to see a Conservative minister - Justine Greening - at one with W.Self and her Labour counterpart. As Hitchens said what we are seeing is the self-destruction of the Conservative party.
pelerin said…
Thanks for the link. A very lively programme unlike some I have turned off in the past because they have been so dull.

I could not help noticing that the majority of the audience were of student age and as this was in Bristol presumably were indeed students there. Only a handful could be described as middleaged. It was hardly an audience representative of Britain as a whole.

Will Self predictably received a round of applause when he said that anybody should be able to get married to anybody else. But when, on the subject of immigration, a member of the audience wondered whether we would have won the Battle of Britain without the help of Polish airmen I was shocked that not one person clapped. Have these brave airmen already been forgotten by the younger generation? I wonder how many there were reading History?
Amfortas said…
Nicolas Bellord is right about the audience interventions. You could tell after the 'ontologically impossible' comment that for a split second Will Self actually understood the main argument against gay marriage. It didn't stop him, of course, continuing to spout rubbish. But for a second it looked like the penny had dropped. He understood and then chose to continue with his line that opponents are bigots.
Peter said…
PH was out of his depth. The panel included the founder of Cobra beer, a prize winning, bestselling author and professor of literature, government ministers and….. an occasional columnist from the Mail on Sunday (the weekend paper, not even a regular gig!) who is principally known as the older, less talented right-wing brother of a dead writer who actually made a regular living off his trade.
Given the disparity in reputation and talent, it is clear he was only invited on so he could make his usual fuss. He is a museum exhibit – ‘angry white male from the home counties # 224’– wheeled out specifically to complain about ‘lefties’ in these situations. Also, did anyone notice how he had bugger all to say on any other subject. Thing with Will Self is, even if you loathe him, you can’t deny he knows his stuff. Peter Hitchens was only clued up on the one reactionary issue he had come to gripe at, even though he only writes one piece a week while the others have full time jobs (his past three riveting forays into saying ‘I’m for traditional values’ include: Dickens was the best author ever, far better than this modern tosh (yawn); complaining about the IRA and advocating a return to the peace process on British terms (yawn); Something about a Muslim lady who made a complaint against him for saying something racist, an allegation he strenuously denies (yawn). Like I say, he is so far out of his depth he should have been put down humanely at the end of the show.
As to the laughable suggestion that he is an outsider who is heroically going against the grain, might I suggest that a financially comfortable, golf-playing middle aged man who has worked for the Daily Express and Daily Mail (mainstream media rags that sells to middle England) is not really an outsider.
Take his speech about Conservatism: the party, he argued, should stand for: Anti-European policies of isolation; punishing criminals; cutting benefits; stopping immigration; privatising education. All the hallmarks of a man who has done very well for himself and now wants to haul up the ladder so he can enjoy the view.
The Labour minister made a very good analogy: the bible also says (and the Roman Catholic Church still uphold) that a divorced man cannot remarry. In fact, Christ says this is an ontological impossibility. Why is the right of a divorced man to remarry any less of a contradiction to the ontology of Christendom than the right of that man to marry another man? Both are denied by the Roman Church, both are denied by scripture, yet it’s only gays that the middle aged men are getting their knickers in a twist about. I wonder why. Will Self made a very funny point here, namely you can just apply Ockham’s razor. The simplest reason why so many middle aged men don’t like gay marriage is that they don’t like gays. There is no need to imagine some convoluted argument about ontological necessity or the unfolding of a divine plan, that’s not why they oppose it; they don’t oppose anything else that would conform to a similar logic. E.g. not a single one of them is also campaigning for condoms to be banned or second marriages to become illegal.
Peter said…
That ‘lady from an ethnic minority’ (or black lady, which is an easier way of putting it Nicolas) was simply wrong in her ire. The laws of this country are NOT based on the bible. You can carp all you like that ‘no one can change the will of God’ (presuming you know what it is) but the judges of this country have already acted against the biblical word. They permit things that were formerly illegal on religious grounds (sodomy, remarriage, atheism, heresy). No one is seriously campaigning to make these things illegal, which presumably means everyone can comfortably understand the distinction between ‘the civil and criminal laws of a secular nation’ and ‘what is says in the bible’. You seem to have selective Shari’iaism when it comes to this matter. Laurence, you would already have been tortured and burned at the stake by now in a Catholic theocracy, let’s not forget that when we use the bible as a spanner in the legal works
Nicolas Bellord said…
Peter: You seem to have joined Will Self in making ad hominem attacks such as suggesting that anybody who opposes gay marriage is homophobic. Why not examine the arguments and make a rational contribution to the debate?
Andrew said…
If the Tory party really cared about marriage, they could make getting a divorce much, much harder, if through no other mechanism that just eliminating no-fault divorces.

They won't make getting a divorce any more difficult though because, well, they don't care about marriage. They care about votes, and they think that this sop to the homosexual lobby will buy them some at the next election.

I suspect they might be in for a bit of a surprise in 2015.....
Amfortas said…
And I suppose, Peter, that those of us who are gay but oppose gay marriage are like 'self-hating Jews' (not my words) who oppose the actions of the state of Israel. Do you ever try to see things 'from a different angle' (to quote a song) or only from your own liberal fascist position?
Anonymous said…
@Peter

To quote Bishop Devine: you are out of your depth as you demonstrate ignorance about what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage but, also with regards to impediments thereto which makes re-marriage of divorced Catholics permissible. You also do not understand that the fact of the matter is that marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. When a Catholic who cannot marry freely deliberately attempts to do so then, that individual is treating that sacrament unworthily and therefore commits sacrilege.

As to your remarks about Laurence, it has never been the habit of the Catholic Church to condemn spiritual giants. We actually protect them from the poison which come from people of your sort. If you would like to discuss burning at the stake with us, do your homework before you embarrass yourself further.

Sonia
Anonymous said…
I absolutely agree. That woman is amazing. She should have a bigger following than the Vatican or C of E. does she have a name and or a social account I.e twitter? Mines @SensiP40 would love to link up. As for the man his point was good he was just too nice and got bullied out before getting it across. Whereas this wonderful woman of God out-spoke the serpents and dominated them. Thank you and may god be with ye (goodbye).
Nicolas Bellord said…
Peter: I do not think I ever said that the law of this country was based on the Bible in the sense you have suggested. However our laws have been strongly influenced by Christianity. The law of Equity was something introduced by successive Lords Chancellor who prior to St Thomas More were invariably clerics. Similarly much of our matrimonial law is based on the Canon law of the Catholic Church as far as nullity is concerned. Of course one has to distinguish between what is merely regarded as unlawful - adultery for example - and what should be criminalised. Just because I congratulated one lady on what she said does not imply that I agree 100% with her but she was brave in raising the question of what divine law mandates much of which is discernible as natural law which is accessible to reason on its own. There is really no need for you to characterise me as supporting something like Sharia law.